Henry VII kept close control of his nobility, as he wanted to maintain his dominance over the most powerful subjects while retaining their co-operation. this control was concerned with acts of attainder, bonds and recognizance’s and the restrictions on livery and maintenance. Henry’s ruthless and severe use of Acts of Attainder prevented disloyal subjects and his descendants from possessing or inheriting land. The crown seized the person’s title and possessions, therefore increasing Crown lands and yearly revenue. Recognizance’s or bonds were a way of ensuring that nobles who offended the king, or whose conduct was a threat to public order had to pay a specified sum of money if they broke the conditions laid down. This was Henry’s method of holding the upper class ransom for their good behavior. It has been estimated that out of 62 peerage families in existence during Henry VII’s reign, the great majority (around 46) were at his mercy, through acts of attainder or bonds and recognizance’s for at least some of the time. this was considered effective from the king’s point of view, as it not only strained the nobles financially, but also reduced their powers considerably.
One major problem concerned with the nobility was retaining, which could be used by a noble to control his locality, or to provide men for the king’s army in times of rebellion or war. Henry on one hand recognised a noble’s right to his retinue; Henry’s aim was to end the lawlessness and corruption, which could result from unchecked retaining. The parliaments of both 1487 and 1504 passed laws against retaining, Henry’s act of 1504 brought in an additional rule; that the lord had to obtain a license for his retinue. Henry VII enjoyed some success with his policy to limit retaining. The numbers of men retained by the nobility fell. Also if nobles broke the law on retaining and were found out, they were treated harshly.
Henry enforced his laws in a more determined way than Edward. In these ways he avoided the conflict of noble factions, which had bedevilled Edward’s reign and was to re-emerge under Henry VIII. By keeping the nobles at a distance and imposing heavy penalties on those who were unwilling to match to his pattern of behaviour, Henry ensured that the factions never threatened his rule. Henry succeeded in controlling the nobility by creating few new peerages, thereby limiting their numbers. He also enforced laws against retaining firmly without fear or favour. In spite of his harshness, Henry still made good use of the nobility to help him rule at both local and national level.
Henry made a significant impact in government through his personal interest in financial administration. He appreciated that his financial strength would weaken political rivals and enable him to keep a firmer grip on the aristocracy. The most significant source of revenue was the royal estates. Henry was also keen to emphasise his own power as king by asserting his feudal rights over the nobility. Henry also raised revenue from his position as feudal overlord. It has been estimated that the income from royal lands and ward ship went up during his reign by 45 %, from an annual average of £29 000 to £42 000. Unlike Edward IV, Henry made few grants of land to political supporters. The remaining revenue came mainly from parliament, which granted Henry customs duties for life. As all revenue was arranged to go directly into the chamber, money was then immediately available for royal use. The impressive accumulation of wealth amassed by Henry may owe something to the Chamber system of finance, which brought 80 % of royal income into his central treasury, by the time of his death.
Henry must be considered outstandingly successful in his management of royal finances in an age when all European monarchs constantly suffered from shortage of revenue. While the Customs revenue rose from £33,000 to £40,000, an increase of 20 %, by the end of the reign the chamber was handling well over £90,000 a year, while another £12,500 passed through the Exchequer. Henry’s ordinary revenue amounted to about £113, 000 per annum. With the addition of parliamentary and clerical taxation, his total revenue works out to be £133,000 When compared to Edward IV, who died solvent, Henry VII not only became solvent quite early in his reign but also secured a surplus in his later years. Furthermore, he was able to leave his son perhaps £200,000 in jewels and plate. It seems that Henry was able to ‘live of his own’; partly because he supervised his accounts more closely than Edward and paid close attention to detail while looking at the account logs personally. also initialing each page. Henry obviously equated good, strong government with a solvent government. Indeed one major cause of Henry’s solvency was his cautious and realistic foreign policy.
Henry’s reign was characterised by his major concern to secure the throne and his succession against a series of claimants, as dynastic threats dominated his dealings with foreign rulers. He knew how vital foreign support could be for any usurper and therefore his foreign policies ensured that the major powers in Europe had abandoned support for any rival claimants to the throne by the mid 1490s.
Edward IV still believed that the English empire could be re-established in France, and his foreign policy regarding both France and Scotland were aggressive, unrealistic and unsuccessful. Henry on the other hand, realises the importance of caution in foreign policy. As the historian Polydore Virgil put it, henry was “more inclined to peace than war.” Peace with France and the marriage of his daughter, Margaret to James VI Scotland benefited both the nation and his dynasty. Above all, Henry’s avoidance of war was vital to England as she was not powerful enough to wage war. By the end of his reign Henry VII had been recognised by other major rulers and had secured his throne from the threats of claimants and pretenders.
Like all successful rulers, Henry also enjoyed good fortune. Henry VI and Edward IV had both suffered from the ambition and power of great aristocrats. Henry, on the other hand, was faced with numerically declining nobility. Again Henry VII was fortunate, unlike Edward IV, in having few living male relatives. His uncle, Jasper Tudor was created Duke of Norfolk but he had no children to succeed him. Of his male children, only Henry VIII survived till adulthood and other claimants to the throne were harshly treated.
J R Green has asserted that the last decades of the 15th century had witnessed the establishment of a ‘New Monarchy’ characterised by financial solvency, efficiency, autocratic centralisation, and the use of the ‘middle-class’ men in place of feudal aristocrats. Henry was solvent; moreover, his government was efficient by contemporary standards; it focused power upon the centre and it was autocratic. It relied on the gentry as much as – if not more than – the aristocracy to carry the king’s commands into effect. In all these ways, Henry VII seems to conform to the pattern of a ‘new monarch’ and the battle of Bosworth can be held to signal the beginning of a new era in English history.
Several historians have gone further to question whether such ruthless methods were really necessary in order for Henry to be successful and whether the English nobility had the capacity to challenge the king’s authority. Lander believes that the political behaviour of the nobility was relatively good, and J.A.F. Thomson has stressed the damage done to the great feudal families as a result of henry’s ruthlessness in bringing them under his control. Christine Carpenter goes further, and in her view, Henry VIII, with his total inexperience of English politics, failed to understand, and so failed to exploit, those relationships with the nobility by which his predecessors government, and by which they gained control of the localities.
However, in conclusion, Henry VII was a successful king. In 1485, the country he ruled was financially, diplomatically and internally weak. However, by his death in 1509, his personal attention to detail meant that the crown was financially solvent. Also Henry’s ruthlessness towards the nobility kept them under his control through legal terrorisation and the dread of financial ruin. He also left his son a country which was not at war as a result of his cautious foreign policy, was not racked by faction, that was more centralized in its administration than ever before, and which was respected by a number of major European powers.
Bibliography
The establishment of the Tudor State 1485-1547
Tudor England
T.A. Morris
1999
The Tudor Years
John Lotherington
1994
Henry VII (Third Edition)
Roger Lockyer and Andrew Thrush
1997
Tudor Britain 1485-1603
Roger Lockyer and Dan O’Sullivan
1997
England 1485-1603
Allan Keen, Derrick Murphy, Michael Tillbrook, Patrick Walsh-Atkins
1999
The Wars of the Roses
Christine Carpenter
1997
