Henry VII practice essay 3
How successful was Henry VII in controlling the nobility?
Henry VII was arguably extremely successful in controlling the nobility. Firstly,
the peerage shrank from 62 in 1485 to 42 in 1509, which meant that the number of
those with powerful influence in the Kingdom was reduced to the extent whereby there
would be less potential for opposition to the reign. It has been argued by T.B. Pugh
(writing in 1974) that 'royal intervention was far more effective than the failure of male
heirs in diminishing the group of great magnate families' who were created by peerage;
it's certainly true that Henry made a great effort to prevent the nobility's growth in
power, as this had been a fundamental problem during the Wars of the Roses. The King
deliberately refrained from creating new positions, which can be seen in the fact that
Henry only created 1 duke after the Battle of Bosworth on 22nd August 1485, and that
was his uncle, Jasper Tudor, who had supported him in the battle. The rest of Henry's
supporters at Bosworth were not rewarded with the huge plots of land which had been
expected in previous reigns, and the majority were given Order of the Garter instead.
This was a symbolic form of reward of the King's trust which had no financial
obligations for the Crown, nor any promotions in status, and subsequently Henry
ensured that his supporting nobles had no opportunity to gain significant power which
could later prove a threat to his security. Patronage was often given to what historian
Steven Gunn has labelled 'New Men' rather than the nobility - these 'New Men' were
rewarded for their personal achievements and hard work instead of status, and this
made sure that existing dukes and earls were unable to gain favour with the King, at
least not to the extent where they could direct policy and threaten Henry's position, so
overall it appears that the first Tudor monarch was very successful in controlling the
growth in power of those who had been loyal to him at Bosworth.
It has been argued by some historians that Henry VII operated a policy of
'calculated mercy' towards nobles who had supported Richard III, which meant that
they did not launch a rebellion against the new Lancastrian king. The case of Thomas
Howard is a clear example of how Henry was prepared to forgive past mistakes; Howard
was imprisoned from the Tower but was released in 1489 after he refrained from
joining the Simnel plot, and gradually recovered his lands until he regained his position
as the Duke of Norfolk during the reign of Henry VIII in 1513. This helped to ensure that
previous enemies of the King did not remain resentful once their punishment was
served, so Henry should credited with an enormous success in changing the attitudes of
some of the most powerful magnates. With Howard and many other threats, Henry often
used acts of attainder as a 'cat and mouse' means of making the noble understand that if
they did profess loyalty to the King, they would be forgiven for their rebellion and could
recover their possessions. Nobles who opposed Henry during his reign were punished
effectively with a strong deterrence by way of financial penalties, a highly innovative
means of punishment in the Early Modern era. It has been estimated that at one time 46
out of 62 noble families were at Henry's financial mercy, so for those who did rebel, the
King removed them as a threat without a charge of treason and inevitable execution and
instead with a punishment that would benefit the Kingdom as a whole. Henry realised
from the mistakes of his predecessors with regards to retaining and operated a decisive
policy of preventing it. In 1487, a law was passed which meant that a duke could retain
around 120 servants while an earl could employ about 80, and this had a beneficial
impact for the monarchy as there were now measures to prevent retaining from getting
out of hand and to a degree whereby the Crown would be at risk of a Yorkist rebellion.
Nevertheless, the way in which Henry curbed the practice of retaining has been
labelled tyrannical by some historians such as Christine Carpenter. It's certainly true
that no one was immune to the King's brutal reign of terror; even the King's mother,
Lady Margaret, was indicted for illegal retaining, while Lord Bergavenny was fined an
How successful was Henry VII in controlling the nobility?
Henry VII was arguably extremely successful in controlling the nobility. Firstly,
the peerage shrank from 62 in 1485 to 42 in 1509, which meant that the number of
those with powerful influence in the Kingdom was reduced to the extent whereby there
would be less potential for opposition to the reign. It has been argued by T.B. Pugh
(writing in 1974) that 'royal intervention was far more effective than the failure of male
heirs in diminishing the group of great magnate families' who were created by peerage;
it's certainly true that Henry made a great effort to prevent the nobility's growth in
power, as this had been a fundamental problem during the Wars of the Roses. The King
deliberately refrained from creating new positions, which can be seen in the fact that
Henry only created 1 duke after the Battle of Bosworth on 22nd August 1485, and that
was his uncle, Jasper Tudor, who had supported him in the battle. The rest of Henry's
supporters at Bosworth were not rewarded with the huge plots of land which had been
expected in previous reigns, and the majority were given Order of the Garter instead.
This was a symbolic form of reward of the King's trust which had no financial
obligations for the Crown, nor any promotions in status, and subsequently Henry
ensured that his supporting nobles had no opportunity to gain significant power which
could later prove a threat to his security. Patronage was often given to what historian
Steven Gunn has labelled 'New Men' rather than the nobility - these 'New Men' were
rewarded for their personal achievements and hard work instead of status, and this
made sure that existing dukes and earls were unable to gain favour with the King, at
least not to the extent where they could direct policy and threaten Henry's position, so
overall it appears that the first Tudor monarch was very successful in controlling the
growth in power of those who had been loyal to him at Bosworth.
It has been argued by some historians that Henry VII operated a policy of
'calculated mercy' towards nobles who had supported Richard III, which meant that
they did not launch a rebellion against the new Lancastrian king. The case of Thomas
Howard is a clear example of how Henry was prepared to forgive past mistakes; Howard
was imprisoned from the Tower but was released in 1489 after he refrained from
joining the Simnel plot, and gradually recovered his lands until he regained his position
as the Duke of Norfolk during the reign of Henry VIII in 1513. This helped to ensure that
previous enemies of the King did not remain resentful once their punishment was
served, so Henry should credited with an enormous success in changing the attitudes of
some of the most powerful magnates. With Howard and many other threats, Henry often
used acts of attainder as a 'cat and mouse' means of making the noble understand that if
they did profess loyalty to the King, they would be forgiven for their rebellion and could
recover their possessions. Nobles who opposed Henry during his reign were punished
effectively with a strong deterrence by way of financial penalties, a highly innovative
means of punishment in the Early Modern era. It has been estimated that at one time 46
out of 62 noble families were at Henry's financial mercy, so for those who did rebel, the
King removed them as a threat without a charge of treason and inevitable execution and
instead with a punishment that would benefit the Kingdom as a whole. Henry realised
from the mistakes of his predecessors with regards to retaining and operated a decisive
policy of preventing it. In 1487, a law was passed which meant that a duke could retain
around 120 servants while an earl could employ about 80, and this had a beneficial
impact for the monarchy as there were now measures to prevent retaining from getting
out of hand and to a degree whereby the Crown would be at risk of a Yorkist rebellion.
Nevertheless, the way in which Henry curbed the practice of retaining has been
labelled tyrannical by some historians such as Christine Carpenter. It's certainly true
that no one was immune to the King's brutal reign of terror; even the King's mother,
Lady Margaret, was indicted for illegal retaining, while Lord Bergavenny was fined an
