The role of the monks, in the commoners own mind, was to provide some kind of relief when times were particularly hard and so they could seek refuge within the monasteries. Yet, from evidence gathered it becomes adamantly clear that monks gave rather less than 5% of their net income to charitable purposes and except in the desolate north (the place of significant revolt, for example the pilgrimage of grace), the abbeys, used for in particular places of refuge and refreshment, were no longer needed. Other social results of the dissolution include the suppression that involved the destruction of books and manuscripts, this contributed to the uprising and riots around the country. However, for some to claim that the loss of libraries meant a great loss to education is simply unfounded.
With the supposed support that the monasteries offered, surely it would become apparent to us that the dissolution greatly aggravated the problem of poverty. The monasteries were the traditional centres of relief for the poor. As well as the commoners having their ‘support’ taken away, the dispossessed monks added to the problem with the swelling throngs of the destitute. However, the inhabitants of the newly dissolved monasteries were usually given pensions of offered new employment within the church. The dissolution may not have increased the problem itself but it did make the need for relief an even more important issue and urgent issue for public authority to deal with. We have all heard the old tale of how Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and did it out of greed and for his love of money, despite this being partly true, we do have to question, if true, why he would set out to build and found thirteen new bishoprics.
Then of course there is a different aspect of the dissolution that we need to consider. The economic effects of the dissolution were widespread and did not just affect those with money. Tawney believed that the dissolution began an orgy of land speculation, “by an unscrupulous minority using the weapons of violence, intimidation and fraud”. Tawney had argued that the crown alienated the land almost immediately, where the crown sold the land at often ridiculously low prices to courtiers and middlemen, who resold at vastly inflated prices. Bindoff, a historian who wrote a book in 1987 shares the same opinion of that of Youings and Habakkuk, where their work has shown that there is no such ‘orgy’ of speculation and land did not go cheap.
A hotly debated topic on why Henry actually dissolved the monasteries is whether or not Henry used the monasteries to make money. The dissolution of the monasteries was a revolution in land ownership second only to that which followed the Norman Conquest where the doomsday book was written (a text which listed every land owner and possession in the kingdom). From what we can tell from the evidence, Cromwell probably would have hoped to use the monastic lands as an endowment off which the monarchy could feed off forever. Chapuys reported in 1535 that Cromwell talked his way into the King’s Council by promising he would the King “the richest that there was in England”. With an offer such as this, how could Henry refuse?
At the time previous to the dissolution, the net income of the Crown estates was three times less than the net income of the monasteries, according to the Valor Essclesiasticus. The figure stood at £136,000 which in today’s money would reach into the billions. However, despite Henry assuming he could pocket the money, out of the money he inherited he would have to pay the pensions and annuities to the dispossessed monks and nuns. For Henry to use this money as endowment income would be a deluded opinion. However this money that Henry gained from the monasteries would have to fund the war with France in 1543, this extra money was supposedly meant to be spent on society; nonetheless, there was little real benefit to society from the sales of the monasteries.
The effects on how the people viewed Henry changed quite dramatically because of the dissolution. They now considered him greedy, a trait you really don’t want to have being King and leader of a country. The people, who had bought the land, now had political influence in their localities. Yet this is not one of the major effects of the dissolution.
Considering these reasons, I can conclude that it was not the financial impact the dissolution had, but actually in the long-run it was the cultural upheaval that caused so much discontent and anguish among the commoners, and therefore the most significant effect among society. The people of the day did not like change; they liked the way things were, and for a King to change and revolutionise their surroundings (such as the church they believed in, and the routine of everyday life) it can be accurate to say this is what caused the biggest impact.
