H/W 5th March 2018
‘The key factor in upholding the king’s authority in the years 1399-1509 was his relatonship
with the nobility.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
The relatonship a king had with his nobility was crucial to upholding the authority, as it allowed
the king ‘to maintain the peace both outward and inward,’ referencing to the idea of Fortescue, that
being how the king’s job was to prevent foreign atacks as well as atacks from ‘inward’ dangers such
as rebellions and lawlessness. Despite its importance, this relatonship was not the sole factor that
determined whether the king’s authority was upheld or not, partcularly when other causes
influenced this, such as military success, rebellions and the popularity of a king.
A positve relatonship with the nobility was crucial within the period of 1399 and 1509 in some
aspects, as it meant that the king would be able to confdently delegate jobs and dutes to these men
without fear of being overthrown or losing popularity and therefore trust in parliament. This
informaton implies that the relatonship between the two partes was important and therefore
played a key role in upholding the king’s authority, as without it each monarch would not be able to
run and control his country. As major landowners, one of their primary roles was to communicate
with the king as to how his subjects are responding to new legislatons and taxatons in their areas of
land - such as the Neville family ensuring and managing the North of England, and reportng back
anything of note to the king at the tme - and were expected to take responsibility for the raise
troops for whenever the king was going to war, such as with France, Scotland, Wales, or any rebels
within England itself. This gives evidence showing how key the relatonship between the nobility and
the king was in order to maintain the king’s authority, as these men had the influence amongst their
retnues of men to change the outcome of numbers a king would have in his army - even raise an
army to aid the king when he is unavailable, much like how Hugh Burnell did during the Welsh
rebellion in Henry IV’s reign, leading to the victory against Glyndwr in 1400 - and so could therefore
overthrow a king if they were unhappy with the regime. In this sense, a positve relatonship was
very important, as it ensured that the king knew when his subjects were unhappy, and that the
nobles were happy with their rewards for doing such jobs – including the lands and men they were
given. If a noble was unhappy with said regime, then this could lead to them trying to start rebellions
or possibly trying to manipulate the king. These men are known as ‘Over-Mighty Subjects.’
‘Over-Mighty Subjects’ is a term also coined by Fortescue, referencing a noble that ‘became too
powerful and influental with the king’ allowing them to ‘steer his patronage and maters of natonal
policy to a very great extent.’ This is a signifcant factor that determined whether the authority of
the king was upheld or not, as this led to nobles rivalling and turning against each other, as well as
allowing them to overpower the monarchy, effectvely altering the king’s positon in power. One
example within the period of 1399 to 1509 include Somerset and Suffolk during Henry VI’s reign,
who were both regarded as manipulatng the king’s weak and indecisive personality to aid
themselves as well as not being able to handle the crisis of losing Normandy to France in 1450. In
regards to the king’s relatonship with nobility, it’s implied from this that Henry VI didn’t have a good
relatonship with his nobles and in additon with his ‘nnder-Mighty Monarch’ stance, caused the
authority of the king to decrease in this situaton. Another instance is the rebellion of the Duke of
Buckingham; Buckingham ultmately betrayed Richard III and supported Henry Tudor’s claim to the
throne instead, although this has been interpreted as him having designs on the plot. Both of these
cases give evidence to show that an over-mighty subject could lead to the downfall of the king, and
although Buckingham’s plan within the rebellion failed, he showed Richard III that there was stll
‘The key factor in upholding the king’s authority in the years 1399-1509 was his relatonship
with the nobility.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
The relatonship a king had with his nobility was crucial to upholding the authority, as it allowed
the king ‘to maintain the peace both outward and inward,’ referencing to the idea of Fortescue, that
being how the king’s job was to prevent foreign atacks as well as atacks from ‘inward’ dangers such
as rebellions and lawlessness. Despite its importance, this relatonship was not the sole factor that
determined whether the king’s authority was upheld or not, partcularly when other causes
influenced this, such as military success, rebellions and the popularity of a king.
A positve relatonship with the nobility was crucial within the period of 1399 and 1509 in some
aspects, as it meant that the king would be able to confdently delegate jobs and dutes to these men
without fear of being overthrown or losing popularity and therefore trust in parliament. This
informaton implies that the relatonship between the two partes was important and therefore
played a key role in upholding the king’s authority, as without it each monarch would not be able to
run and control his country. As major landowners, one of their primary roles was to communicate
with the king as to how his subjects are responding to new legislatons and taxatons in their areas of
land - such as the Neville family ensuring and managing the North of England, and reportng back
anything of note to the king at the tme - and were expected to take responsibility for the raise
troops for whenever the king was going to war, such as with France, Scotland, Wales, or any rebels
within England itself. This gives evidence showing how key the relatonship between the nobility and
the king was in order to maintain the king’s authority, as these men had the influence amongst their
retnues of men to change the outcome of numbers a king would have in his army - even raise an
army to aid the king when he is unavailable, much like how Hugh Burnell did during the Welsh
rebellion in Henry IV’s reign, leading to the victory against Glyndwr in 1400 - and so could therefore
overthrow a king if they were unhappy with the regime. In this sense, a positve relatonship was
very important, as it ensured that the king knew when his subjects were unhappy, and that the
nobles were happy with their rewards for doing such jobs – including the lands and men they were
given. If a noble was unhappy with said regime, then this could lead to them trying to start rebellions
or possibly trying to manipulate the king. These men are known as ‘Over-Mighty Subjects.’
‘Over-Mighty Subjects’ is a term also coined by Fortescue, referencing a noble that ‘became too
powerful and influental with the king’ allowing them to ‘steer his patronage and maters of natonal
policy to a very great extent.’ This is a signifcant factor that determined whether the authority of
the king was upheld or not, as this led to nobles rivalling and turning against each other, as well as
allowing them to overpower the monarchy, effectvely altering the king’s positon in power. One
example within the period of 1399 to 1509 include Somerset and Suffolk during Henry VI’s reign,
who were both regarded as manipulatng the king’s weak and indecisive personality to aid
themselves as well as not being able to handle the crisis of losing Normandy to France in 1450. In
regards to the king’s relatonship with nobility, it’s implied from this that Henry VI didn’t have a good
relatonship with his nobles and in additon with his ‘nnder-Mighty Monarch’ stance, caused the
authority of the king to decrease in this situaton. Another instance is the rebellion of the Duke of
Buckingham; Buckingham ultmately betrayed Richard III and supported Henry Tudor’s claim to the
throne instead, although this has been interpreted as him having designs on the plot. Both of these
cases give evidence to show that an over-mighty subject could lead to the downfall of the king, and
although Buckingham’s plan within the rebellion failed, he showed Richard III that there was stll
