Henry VII practice essay 2
'Henry's success in establishing the dynasty was due almost entirely to the fact that he was
a ruthless and brutal tyrant.' Assess the validity of this view
When Henry VIII came to power on 21st April 1509, he immediately denounced
his father's policies as tyrannical. Indeed, revisionist historians such as Christine
Carpenter have stressed that towards the end of Henry VII's reign, he was in serious
danger of widespread rebellion. His greed for money is perhaps the greatest part of his
tyrannical qualities; Henry's use of Justices of the Peace (JPs) became hated among the
common people, as the leading councillors Empsom and Dudley pursued hefty fines and
bonds with an unprecedented ferocity. Naturally, financial dissent is the most likely
cause of a popular rebellion, and so several more years of Henry's reign could have led
to him being deposed from power, just as he had done to the similarly tyrannical
Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. The King's greed for money
extended to the nobility, of whom 46 out of the 62 noble families were at one time at his
financial mercy. Therefore, Henry VII controlled his people by way of a ruthless and
repressive financial regime, and little of this money went to charitable causes such as
aiding the aged, poor and infirm. Punishments of his subjects were extremely severe -
for example, Lord Bergavenny was fined £70,550 in 1506 for illegal retaining, which is
further evidence of Henry's unnecessary cruelty for which he should be heavily
criticised. Historians such as G.R. Elton have dismissed the view that Henry VII created
what has been known as a 'New Monarchy', and in many aspects, Henry made no
effective or meaningful reforms to improve the lives of his subjects. The majority of
reforms in administration were simply intended to increase his control over the realm,
like the effecting of Poyning's Law in Ireland in 1494, which mounts a powerful
argument for the view that Henry was a brutal tyrant, requiring an unwavering control
over his people.
Nevertheless, in foreign policy, the King was hardly tyrannical, as discussed by
his own historian Polydore Vergil, who wrote that 'Henry was more inclined to peace
than war'. It's certainly true that Henry VII, unlike his xenophobic son, lacked the desire
for personal glory and conquest, abandoning opportunities to invade France after the
annexation of Brittany in 1492. He also refrained from launching campaigns in Italy,
enabling the Kingdom to enjoy some much-needed stability and economic recovery after
the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses. Isolating the nation from foreign affairs allowed
Henry to deliver just and relatively lenient decisions against those who had rebelled
against him both during and after the Battle of Bosworth. For example, when Lord Lovel
and the Stafford brothers broke sanctuary in 1486, Henry carried out a policy which
many historians have labelled as 'calculated mercy'; he always gave rebels the choice of
pardon regardless of status, and for this he should be credited with sparing the lives of
those who opposed him. This is quite the opposite of a tyrant, and in any case, when
Henry did come down harshly on his enemies, it was when there was a serious threat to
his security. In the case of all of the pretenders to the throne, including Lambert Simnel,
Perkin Warbeck and the Earl of Suffolk, Henry preferred imprisonment rather than
execution. Warbeck arguably survived for so many years because of Henry's mercy, as
Warbeck could have been killed in Ireland or through war with Scotland. The fact that
war was avoided with all powers who supported the pretenders in spite of the risk
posed by them is testament to just how calm Henry remained in the crises. Therefore, all
threats were suppressed with little bloodshed, so the King was a very lenient and
peaceful leader.
Henry VII arguably revolutionised the criminal justice system, with new financial
punishments instead of executions benefiting the realm as a whole. For example, the
Marquis of Dorset signed bonds of £10,000 for being implicated in the Simnel plot, while
Sir William Stanley was fined £9000 by way of attainder in 1495 for treason - with his
'Henry's success in establishing the dynasty was due almost entirely to the fact that he was
a ruthless and brutal tyrant.' Assess the validity of this view
When Henry VIII came to power on 21st April 1509, he immediately denounced
his father's policies as tyrannical. Indeed, revisionist historians such as Christine
Carpenter have stressed that towards the end of Henry VII's reign, he was in serious
danger of widespread rebellion. His greed for money is perhaps the greatest part of his
tyrannical qualities; Henry's use of Justices of the Peace (JPs) became hated among the
common people, as the leading councillors Empsom and Dudley pursued hefty fines and
bonds with an unprecedented ferocity. Naturally, financial dissent is the most likely
cause of a popular rebellion, and so several more years of Henry's reign could have led
to him being deposed from power, just as he had done to the similarly tyrannical
Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. The King's greed for money
extended to the nobility, of whom 46 out of the 62 noble families were at one time at his
financial mercy. Therefore, Henry VII controlled his people by way of a ruthless and
repressive financial regime, and little of this money went to charitable causes such as
aiding the aged, poor and infirm. Punishments of his subjects were extremely severe -
for example, Lord Bergavenny was fined £70,550 in 1506 for illegal retaining, which is
further evidence of Henry's unnecessary cruelty for which he should be heavily
criticised. Historians such as G.R. Elton have dismissed the view that Henry VII created
what has been known as a 'New Monarchy', and in many aspects, Henry made no
effective or meaningful reforms to improve the lives of his subjects. The majority of
reforms in administration were simply intended to increase his control over the realm,
like the effecting of Poyning's Law in Ireland in 1494, which mounts a powerful
argument for the view that Henry was a brutal tyrant, requiring an unwavering control
over his people.
Nevertheless, in foreign policy, the King was hardly tyrannical, as discussed by
his own historian Polydore Vergil, who wrote that 'Henry was more inclined to peace
than war'. It's certainly true that Henry VII, unlike his xenophobic son, lacked the desire
for personal glory and conquest, abandoning opportunities to invade France after the
annexation of Brittany in 1492. He also refrained from launching campaigns in Italy,
enabling the Kingdom to enjoy some much-needed stability and economic recovery after
the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses. Isolating the nation from foreign affairs allowed
Henry to deliver just and relatively lenient decisions against those who had rebelled
against him both during and after the Battle of Bosworth. For example, when Lord Lovel
and the Stafford brothers broke sanctuary in 1486, Henry carried out a policy which
many historians have labelled as 'calculated mercy'; he always gave rebels the choice of
pardon regardless of status, and for this he should be credited with sparing the lives of
those who opposed him. This is quite the opposite of a tyrant, and in any case, when
Henry did come down harshly on his enemies, it was when there was a serious threat to
his security. In the case of all of the pretenders to the throne, including Lambert Simnel,
Perkin Warbeck and the Earl of Suffolk, Henry preferred imprisonment rather than
execution. Warbeck arguably survived for so many years because of Henry's mercy, as
Warbeck could have been killed in Ireland or through war with Scotland. The fact that
war was avoided with all powers who supported the pretenders in spite of the risk
posed by them is testament to just how calm Henry remained in the crises. Therefore, all
threats were suppressed with little bloodshed, so the King was a very lenient and
peaceful leader.
Henry VII arguably revolutionised the criminal justice system, with new financial
punishments instead of executions benefiting the realm as a whole. For example, the
Marquis of Dorset signed bonds of £10,000 for being implicated in the Simnel plot, while
Sir William Stanley was fined £9000 by way of attainder in 1495 for treason - with his
