Henry VII practice essay 1
'Henry VII considered it highly important to improve the Kingdom's finances so that he
could secure his claim to the throne' Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
Henry came to the throne with a weak claim through his mother's family and as
a usurper, who had ousted a Yorkist king to whom many remained loyal. To retain his
security therefore, Henry considered finances the best possible way of suppressing all
threats to his reign; if he had money, then pretenders to the throne could be aptly dealt
with, whilst foreign countries would be less likely to invade if England gave the
impression of wealth and power. The importance with which Henry came to view
financial improvement can be seen in the way he punished his enemies - receipts from
bonds for example, rose from £3000 in 1493 to £35,000 in 1505, with almost three
quarters of noble families at his financial mercy at one time in his reign. This has led
some historians to remark that 'the less he took of blood, the more he took of treasure',
and so Henry used extraordinary revenue for the double benefits of improving finances
and subduing any threats. Further evidence of improving finances for his personal
security came in the King's use of attainder, using an innovative method of punishing
acts of treason by way of fines. After his conspiracy in 1495, Sir William Stanley was
forced to pay the Crown £9000 and £1000 per annum thereafter - in previous eras,
Stanley would have been quickly executed, however Henry cleverly managed to secure
the compliance of enemies such as Stanley whilst simultaneously bringing great benefits
to his Kingdom's power, with this acting as a stable and consistent form of income which
would have been impossible to access if Stanley had been executed.
This money had positive secondary impacts for Henry's security too. His
effective temporary use of the Exchequer instead of the Chamber at the beginning of his
reign gave him the immediate finances he needed to suppress the Simnel Rising in 1487,
as Henry was able to use his finances to quickly raise an army that was superior to the
rebels at the Battle of Stoke. Restoring the Chamber system of finance in the ensuing
years proved to be the correct decision as by the late 1490s, Henry was handling an
annual turnover of well in excess of £100,000 from ordinary revenue from areas such as
Crown lands and feudal dues. This far outstripped the £25,000 annual income of Richard
III, and proved crucial in allowing Henry to deal with all threats from the pretenders,
Perkin Warbeck (1491-1497) and the Earl of Suffolk (1499-1506). With Warbeck for
example, Henry could afford to offer financial incentives to Margaret of Burgundy and
the Scots so as to ensure their compliance by withdrawing support for Warbeck and
hence making the King's position more secure, with no possibility of a repeat of the
Battle of Stoke. Henry even managed to gain further extraordinary revenue by signing
the Treaty of Etaples with France, which not only resulted in Warbeck's banishing from
the kingdom, but also a £5000 a year pension, and so Henry should be credited with an
enormous success here by achieving all of his aims in both foreign and domestic policy.
This evidence of shrewd and calculated skills in financial diplomacy has led many
historians to consider Henry VII 'the best businessman to sit upon the English throne'.
He managed to give the appearance of great wealth and prosperity in his Kingdom,
which impressed contemporaries such as Ferdinand I of Aragon and Isabelle of Castile,
and this arguably convinced them to sign the Treaty of Medina del Campo. This was
another crucial success for Henry because it meant that he was recognised as the
legitimate King of England by one of Europe's major powers, and gained a significant
dowry from Catherine of Aragon's father for her marriage to Henry's son, Arthur, which
gave Henry yet another form of much-needed revenue which could be used to suppress
pretenders with Spain's support.
However, revisionist historians such as Christine Carpenter have considered it
important to stress that Henry was no expert in financial affairs, and that many of his
successes were due to a combination of luck and the lack of genuine opposition to his
'Henry VII considered it highly important to improve the Kingdom's finances so that he
could secure his claim to the throne' Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
Henry came to the throne with a weak claim through his mother's family and as
a usurper, who had ousted a Yorkist king to whom many remained loyal. To retain his
security therefore, Henry considered finances the best possible way of suppressing all
threats to his reign; if he had money, then pretenders to the throne could be aptly dealt
with, whilst foreign countries would be less likely to invade if England gave the
impression of wealth and power. The importance with which Henry came to view
financial improvement can be seen in the way he punished his enemies - receipts from
bonds for example, rose from £3000 in 1493 to £35,000 in 1505, with almost three
quarters of noble families at his financial mercy at one time in his reign. This has led
some historians to remark that 'the less he took of blood, the more he took of treasure',
and so Henry used extraordinary revenue for the double benefits of improving finances
and subduing any threats. Further evidence of improving finances for his personal
security came in the King's use of attainder, using an innovative method of punishing
acts of treason by way of fines. After his conspiracy in 1495, Sir William Stanley was
forced to pay the Crown £9000 and £1000 per annum thereafter - in previous eras,
Stanley would have been quickly executed, however Henry cleverly managed to secure
the compliance of enemies such as Stanley whilst simultaneously bringing great benefits
to his Kingdom's power, with this acting as a stable and consistent form of income which
would have been impossible to access if Stanley had been executed.
This money had positive secondary impacts for Henry's security too. His
effective temporary use of the Exchequer instead of the Chamber at the beginning of his
reign gave him the immediate finances he needed to suppress the Simnel Rising in 1487,
as Henry was able to use his finances to quickly raise an army that was superior to the
rebels at the Battle of Stoke. Restoring the Chamber system of finance in the ensuing
years proved to be the correct decision as by the late 1490s, Henry was handling an
annual turnover of well in excess of £100,000 from ordinary revenue from areas such as
Crown lands and feudal dues. This far outstripped the £25,000 annual income of Richard
III, and proved crucial in allowing Henry to deal with all threats from the pretenders,
Perkin Warbeck (1491-1497) and the Earl of Suffolk (1499-1506). With Warbeck for
example, Henry could afford to offer financial incentives to Margaret of Burgundy and
the Scots so as to ensure their compliance by withdrawing support for Warbeck and
hence making the King's position more secure, with no possibility of a repeat of the
Battle of Stoke. Henry even managed to gain further extraordinary revenue by signing
the Treaty of Etaples with France, which not only resulted in Warbeck's banishing from
the kingdom, but also a £5000 a year pension, and so Henry should be credited with an
enormous success here by achieving all of his aims in both foreign and domestic policy.
This evidence of shrewd and calculated skills in financial diplomacy has led many
historians to consider Henry VII 'the best businessman to sit upon the English throne'.
He managed to give the appearance of great wealth and prosperity in his Kingdom,
which impressed contemporaries such as Ferdinand I of Aragon and Isabelle of Castile,
and this arguably convinced them to sign the Treaty of Medina del Campo. This was
another crucial success for Henry because it meant that he was recognised as the
legitimate King of England by one of Europe's major powers, and gained a significant
dowry from Catherine of Aragon's father for her marriage to Henry's son, Arthur, which
gave Henry yet another form of much-needed revenue which could be used to suppress
pretenders with Spain's support.
However, revisionist historians such as Christine Carpenter have considered it
important to stress that Henry was no expert in financial affairs, and that many of his
successes were due to a combination of luck and the lack of genuine opposition to his
