King Henry VII’s reign introduced a new way of ruling a country. With his accession there were many other alterations made to the monarchy. The actions he took are considered by some as being anti – noble, but this issue is the key point reviewed by this essay.
Henry made alterations because he came to realise how high the possibility of highly powerful nobles over – powering him, threatening his throne. An example of one of these circumstances was during the reign of Richard II, when he “...became involved in a struggle with the leading nobles. In 1399 his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, forces him to abdicate and became king in his place as Henry IV.” From reviewing such events as this, as well as the situation involving the betrayal on Stanley’s part towards Richard at the Battle of Bosworth field, Henry could interpret the consequences of powerful nobles, although there are advantages, such as the controlling law and order, there were many negative aspects. Henry could not afford to contemplate their trust, or the possibility of the nobles over powering him would always play a key role during his reign.
The new policies made by Henry could be portrayed in two main ways. The first being that he was an anti – noble king, the other being that the policies reflect “...suspicion and real paranoid megalomania” This essay will firstly examine the anti – noble views. First of all, Henry introduced the following ideas; firstly, he decided on a much smaller peerage, which meant that he assigned the “...fewest amounts of land in history...” to the nobles, giving them less power over nearby land. The next policy which he introduced was to give the least amount of favours to the nobles, through such things as finance, again restraining their power due to a smaller wealth, as well as the not providing them with armies. The most significant policy which he introduced, in this essays point of view, is the policy which made retaining illegal. This was a policy used by the nobles, giving them total authority over their workers, therefore creating the threat of them fighting on behalf of the nobles in opposition of the king. Henry also created attainders and ward ships which he created. These meant that nobles were required to sign ‘contracts’ to the king, which, if were broken entailed prison sentences, yet in many cases were settled financially, being a hefty source of finance for Henry. Another piece of evidence on this point was the spying culture which Henry created. This included him rewarding anyone who provided un-proven information for disloyalties against him. Henrys next policy was to control noble marriages. This gave him the power to disallow marriages which could form a power block and cause a threat to his reign. The last action policy by Henry was to remove nobles from the Royal Council and to replace them with his own lawyers, thus enraging the nobility.
The reigns of King Henry VII’s predecessors were clearly unstable due to many downfalls, but the one in which this essay is concerned is their instability due to the stability of the nobility. This was the main reason for Henrys actions of decreasing their responsibilities, and not because he was an anti-noble. The word ‘anti’, meaning against gives the assumption that he was against the nobles. Evidence against this claim from the challenging view of historians show that “Henry socialised with nobles...” Henry was known to gamble in recreational time members of the nobility. Other claims were mostly financially related, such as the view that the reason for Henry not creating new lords or willingly giving out land was due to the ...”financial restraints that he was under...” due to the lack of finances in the crowns chambers.
Another key point supporting Henry, opposing the claim that he was anti-noble, is that Henry needed the nobles. Why would he purposely create tension through taking away their power and responsibility if they were needed to assist him with the ruling of his country? They were needed to maintain Law and order in distant regions, such as Pembroke, meaning that, should Henry oppose the nobles to such an extent, the nobles would oppose him, with the possibility of an uncontrolled society. Henry’s intelligence at firstly assessing the reigns of his predecessors before acting, portrays the idea to this essay that Henry assessed all possibilities involved with the nobility and their power, before acting, which plays a vital role in the length of his reign.
Those whom Henry sacked from his council were, in the view of many historians, unsuitable for their position, and in some way incompetent.
For Henry, the policies in which he introduced were clearly successful in securing his throne, as, although there were attempted usurptions, he remained in power until his death in ......, unlike many before him, who were forced to abdicate due to actions taken by the nobility.
The main issue brought to attention in this essay is concerning the claim that Henry was anti-noble deliberately, to secure his throne; however, this is not the only issue. There are three main others. The initial exploration by this essay is into the financial prospects. Previously, before Henrys’ policies, the nobles requested money from the king for amenities such as private armies. Henry’s policy decreased the expenditure for these requests.
“England” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99.
