Key features in the reign of Henry VII

Threats to the Crown: Conclusion

Did the challenges to the throne '1486-1506' pose a real threat to Henry VII?

Threat

• Henry had no strong heirs (Arthur was only a baby)
• There was the possibility of the treacherous magnates rallying in support of the pretenders which made Henry paranoid.
• Henry's claim to the throne was weak and there were Yorkists alive with stronger claims to the throne than Henry including de la Pole.
• The mere existence of Suffolk posed a threat.
• Battles were a risky business. Henry was prepared with a big army at Stoke but there was always a chance of treachery (e.g. The Stanley's at Bosworth).
• The threats lingered on for a long time. E.g: The Warbeck plot lasted 8 years causing significant anxiety and expense for Henry. 
• Henry had very recently left France (1485) landed in Wales and won the Battle of Bosworth to take the throne. This could happen again.
• There was widespread international backing for the pretenders- Ireland, Scotland, Burgundy, and the Netherlands. 
• The Early years of Henry's reign were unstable since there was a history of bloodshed and usurpation.
• It was hard to prove Warbeck wasn't who he said he was.

Not a Threat

• Henry was helped by Parliament who granted him money with high taxes. 
• People did not want to extend the Wars of the Roses on the grounds of dubious claimants.
• There was little support for the Pretenders in England (only in the peripheries).
• Other foreign powers were unlikely to invade E.g Maximilian the Holy Roman Emperor didn't have the resources available due to the Italian Wars.
• The pretender plots were not secret. Henry's spies monitored then and used pre-emptive strikes. Henry was prepared. He defeated the Simnel with a big army at Stoke.
• International security was achieved through marriage alliances. E.g: Katherine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor, James IV of Scotland and Margaret Tudor.
• Henry was a good dimplomat, able to win over foreign powers who supported the pretenders. Henry made the Treaty of Medina del Campo with Spain in 1489 which stated Spain would not assist the Yorkists. Henry negotiated the Treaty of Etaples with France in 1492 which secured a French pension and promise not to aid Yorkists.
• The pretenders were imposters not true blood Yorkists.

Threats to the Crown: Part 3

A genuine claimant 

The Earl of Suffolk

1499- 1506.

• 1499 Suffolk (a Yorkist) was being punished for his brother's activities against Henry VII in the early years of his reign.

 

• Suffolk was summoned to ordinary court (which was humiliating as he was not surrounded by his peers) and he fled to Burgundy. 

• 1499- Henry VII issued arrest orders for Suffolk and he returned to England later that year.

• 1501- Suffolk fled England again and sought the help of Maximilian. He referred to himself as the White Rose, making it clear that he was a Yorkist contender to the throne.

• Maximilian promised to help the Yorkist heirs. Henry gave him £10,000 but Maximilian made no move to expel Edmund de la Pole from Burgundy. £250,000 was received in loans that were never repaid. Henry also reluctantly agreed to trade concessions.

• 1505 - Henry suspended trade between England and Burgundy.

• The situation changed following the death of Isabella of Castille.

• Archduke Philip of Burgundy was forced to land in England due to a freak storm. He extracted £138,000 from Henry and in return he surrendered Suffolk to Henry.

• Suffolk was paraded through the streets of London and imprisoned in the town. He was initially kept alive but executed by Henry VIII in 1513.

 

Threats to the Crown: Part 2

The pretenders:

Perkin Warbeck

Timeline:

PERKIN WARBECK, pretender to the throne of England, was the son of Jehan de Werbecque, a poor burgess of Tournay in Flanders and of his wife Katherine de Faro. The exact date of his birth is unknown, but as he represented himself as having been nine years old in 1483, it must have taken place in, or close on, 1474. His confession made at the end of his life was an account of his early years which is to some extent supported by other testimony. The names of his father and other relations whom he mentions have been found in the municipal records of Tournay, and the official description of them agrees with his statements. According to this version, which may be accepted as substantially true, he was brought up at Antwerp by a cousin Jehan Stienbecks, and served a succession of employers as a boy servant. He was for a time with an Englishman John Strewe at Middleburg, and then accompanied Lady Brampton, the wife of an exiled partisan of the house of York, to Portugal. He was for a year employed by a Portuguese knight whom he described as having only one eye, and whom he names Vacz de Cogna (Vaz da Cunha?). In 1491 he was at Cork as the servant of a Breton silk merchant Pregent (Pierre Jean) Meno. Ireland was strongly attached to the house of York, and was full of intrigue against King Henry VII. Perkin says that the people seeing him dressed in the silks of his master took him for a person of distinction, and insisted that he must be either the son of George, Duke of Clarence, or a bastard of Richard III. He was more or less encouraged by the Earls of Desmond and Kildare. The facts are ill recorded, but it is safe to presume that intriguers who wished to disturb the government of Henry VII took advantage of a popular delusion, and made use of the lad as a tool. At this time he spoke English badly. By 1492 he had become sufficiently notorious to attract the attention of King Henry's government and of foreign sovereigns. He was in that year summoned to Flanders by Margaret, the widowed Duchess of Burgundy, and sister of Edward IV, who was the main support of the Yorkist exiles, and who was the enemy of Henry VII for family reasons and for personal reasons also, for she wished to extort from him the payment of the balance of her dowry. She found the impostor useful as a means of injuring the King of England. Several European sovereigns were moved to help him by the same kind of reason. The suppositions that he was the son of Clarence or of Richard III were discarded in favour of the more useful hypothesis that he was Richard, Duke of York, the younger of the two sons of Edward IV, murdered in the Tower. Charles VIII, King of France, the counsellors of the youthful Duke of Burgundy, the Duke's father Maximilian, King of the Romans, and James IV of Scotland, none of whom can have been really deceived, took up his cause more or less actively. He was entertained in France, and was taken by Maximilian to attend the funeral of the Emperor Frederick III in 1493. At Vienna he was treated as the lawful King of England. He was naturally the cause of considerable anxiety to the English government, which was well acquainted with his real history, and made attempts to get him seized. His protectors entered into negotiations which in fact turned on the question whether more was to be gained by supporting him, or by giving him up. An appeal to Isabella, Queen of Castile, met with no response. In July 1495 he was provided with a few ships and men by Maximilian, now Emperor, and he appeared on the coast of Kent. No movement in his favour took place. A few of his followers who landed were cut off, and he went on to Ireland to join the Earl of Desmond in Munster. After an unsuccessful attack on Waterford in August, he fled to Scotland. Here King James IV showed him favour, and arranged a marriage for him with Catherine Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly. He was helped to make a short inroad into Northumberland, but the intervention of the Spanish government brought about a peace between England and Scotland. In 1497 Perkin was sent on his travels again with two or three small vessels, and accompanied by his wife, who had borne him one or two children. After some obscure adventures in Ireland, he landed at Whitesand Bay, near the Land's End, on the 7th of September, and was joined by a crowd of the country people, who had been recently in revolt against excessive taxation. He advanced to Exeter, but was unable to master the town. On the approach of the royal troops he deserted his followers, and ran for refuge to the sanctuary of Beaulieu in Hampshire. He then surrendered. His wife was kindly treated and placed in the household of Henry's Queen Elizabeth. Perkin was compelled to make two ignominious public confessions at Westminster, and in Cheapside in June 1498. On the 23rd of November 1499, he was hanged on a charge of endeavouring to escape from the Tower with the imprisoned Earl of Warwick.

 In note form:

• 
  
• A young Flemish boy.
• With Yorkist backing.
• He had handsome appearance and Princely bearing.
• His clothier employer took him to Ireland with a fellow Yorkist John Taylor to impersonate Richard, Duke of York. Son of Edward IV.
• Most Irish Lords, including (crucially) Kildare refused to give Warbeck their backing.
• Henry VII dispatched troops to Ireland
• Warbeck traveled to France in 1492 and Charles VIII received him as a Prince.
• Henry and Charles signed the Treaty of Etaples in November 1492 agreeing not to shelter rebels.
• In 1493 Warbeck was forced to go to the court of Margaret of Burgundy. She tutored him in the ways of the Yorkist court.
• In 1493, Archduke Philip assumed control of Burgundy. Henry protested to him about the harboring of Warbeck. When Philip ignored the protest, Henry introduced a trade ban.
• Warbeck was then welcomed at the court of the new Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian. Warbeck promised that if he died before becoming King, his 'claim' would fall to Maximilian. 
•  In 1494 Henry's spies uncovered English conspirators among the Government. The most prominent one was Sir William Stanley who was executed in Febuary 1495.
•  In July 1495 Warbeck failed his attempt to land at Deal. He fled to Ireland and enlisted the support of the Earl of Desmond. He was driven out by Sir Edward Poynings.
• Warbeck fled to Scotland in 1495 he was given a royal welcome by James IV. He married James' cousin. Lady Catherine Gordon. James supported an unsuccessful invasion of England in September.
• James IV signed the Truce of Ayton with Henry VII, so Warbeck had to move again, this time to Ireland. The Irish rejected him in 1497.
• Warbeck landed in Cornwall to profit from the antagonism felt towards Henry following the Cornish rebellion (1497) but he received little support and was arrested.
• In 1498 Warbeck was transferred to the Tower.
•  Warbeck and the Earl of Warwick were said to be involved in an escape attempt and were both executed. 
•  

Threats to the Crown: Part 1

The pretenders:

Lambert Sinmel

(1484-87)

What happened?

From the moment Henry, Earl of Richmond, emerged from Bosworth as King Henry VII, he knew he’d only won the battle – not the war itself.  His claim to the throne was undeniably obscure and complicated, and only his marriage to the daughter of King Edward IV, Elizabeth of York, had the potential to stabilise his claim.  But even that, he knew, thanks to Richard III’s Titulus Regius (declaring all Edward IV’s children illegitimate), would not end his woes.  He was also surrounded by those who had a greater claim to the throne than he through other avenues.  Nevertheless, in the immediate aftermath of Bosworth, he seems to have attempted to win the Yorkist’s over.  Not only did he go ahead with the marriage, but he was kind to John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (whom Richard III had named his heir following the death of Edward of Middleham), and several others had had their lives spared following his victory.  They were not unduly punished for acting in Yorkist favour (Margaret Beaufort even praised a former servant of Richard III for their loyalty – a fact somewhat at odds with popular perception of her as a Yorkist destroying dragon). But Henry was far too intelligent a man to know that this was a cause that couldn’t be killed through kindness alone.

So, given the grim inevitability of rebellions, Henry knew also that more difficult decisions had to be made regarding other claimants; ones too close to his crown for comfort.  One such case was that of Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick.  The son of George, Duke of Clarence, and Isabel Nevill, he was the nephew of two Yorkist Kings through the paternal side.  As a pre-emptive strike against would-be conspirators who were waiting in the wings, Henry had the boy transported to the Tower where he could be watched and monitored for his own safety. Which is just as well, because less than two years into the reign of Henry VII, Warwick had a double.

Not a lot is known about Lambert Simnel.  G.R Elton states that he was the son of a Joiner or Carpenter from Oxfordshire, and was roughly twelve years old when he was spotted by an ambitious Clergyman, Richard Symonds (described by Elton as: “A man of no birth, but some brains” – which leaves us wondering why he did what he did next).  Simnel was taken from his family (possibly on the promise of a career in the Church), and schooled by Symonds in the ways of the aristocracy.  Originally, he was to impersonate the younger of Edward IV’s sons, Richard of Shrewsbury.  But for some time, rumours had been circulating that Henry VII had secretly killed off the Earl of Warwick (it wouldn’t be the first time that a young heir had been secretly done away with in the Fortress).  So soon, there was a change of plan.  Instead of impersonating one of Edward IV’s unfortunate sons, Simnel was set up as the Earl.

Following very careful coaching, Simnel’s mannerisms, tone of speech and deportment were all ironed out. He was decked out in fine clothes and taught to compose himself with the haughtiness of the ruling classes; and none of the Carpenter’s son remained in him by the time he was taken to Dublin to claim “his” throne.  Once in Ireland, he was in a place safe enough to start rallying troops for an invasion of England.  The Earl of Kildare was chief among the Irish supporters (keen to be rid of English influence on Irish soil – he had his own vested interests in the enterprise).  Co-ordinating the English troops was John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln.  In Europe, the real Edward Plantagenet’s aunt, Margaret of Burgundy, had given her backing (and alongside her was Lord Francis Lovell – an exiled Yorkist).  Between them, they mustered an army of 2000 German mercenaries to take back the Crown.

 However, Henry had spies everywhere (not without good reason), and had already heard of the brewing rebellion.  Looking back from the distance of over five-hundred years, it’s hard to see what the fuss was about.  It’s clear to us that Simnel was a fake; a puppet being used for the ambitions of others (de la Pole had his own claim to the Crown and was probably just using the boy as a front, and even Symonds the Priest had his eye on the greater glory to be gotten through a puppet King).  But the plot, regardless of its flimsiness, had gained a swell of support for the Yorkist cause, and left Henry’s vulnerabilities horribly exposed.  So, Henry acted swiftly and decisively.  In May, 1487, the real Edward Plantagenet was dressed up in all his finery and paraded through the streets of London for all the people to see, and for all the foreign ambassadors to see and filter back to their European masters (thus letting the rest of the world know that the real Earl was alive and well and living at the Tower).  But, at roughly the same time, Lambert Simnel was at Dublin Cathedral being crowned King Edward VI of England and France, and Lord of Ireland.  Parading the real Earl through the streets was too little, too late. With so much riding on Lambert Simnel, military engagement was now unavoidable.

The battle happened on 16^th June, 1487 at Stoke.  Once again, Henry’s troops were outnumbered; once again Henry had the luck of the Devil on his side.  Simnel’s troops were crushed, and even de la Pole was killed in action.  The rest of the disaffected, desperate Yorkists that had flocked to his banner scattered leaving the bewildered Simnel and Symonds to pick up the flack, such as it was.  Realising that Simnel, a mere child, was a front for the ambitions of others, Henry showed him great mercy by appointing him as spit turner in the Palace Kitchens (he rose to the exalted rank of Royal Falconer, and lived to a respectable age).  Symonds, too, was even granted mercy (but was kept under lock and key for life).

Overall, Simnel had been an abysmal failure.  The only support he got was from the most desperate of old-guard Yorkists and an Irish earl who would do anything to rid his country of the English.   His disguise was all too easily lifted by the parading of the real Earl (who was also left in the Tower, but suffered no ill effects of the rebellion that was led in his name).  The biggest shock to Henry must have been the involvement of his own mother-in-law, Elizabeth Woodville (described by Elton as “meddlesome and interfering”), who would – as a result – end her days in the Nunnery at Bermondsey.  But despite the failure, Henry’s vulnerabilities had been painfully exposed.  He had been jeopardised by a child with an ambitious handler and a few desperate enemies.  It shook Henry, and given a few quirks of fate, could have ended disastrously for him.  As a result, it’s not something that we should dismiss when studying Henry’s reign and the events that made him the sort of King he became.

There is one more point to conclude this post.  Although Henry was blissfully unaware of it, Simnel was successful in just one respect: how not to be a Pretender.  People were watching, learning and waiting for the chance to strike again against Henry, and a much bigger threat to his Crown was lurking just across the sea.

Henry VII and Foriegn policy

1. Foreign Policy

• Is there one? Domestic/foreign split not in vogue then.

2. What are policy aims?

• For nobility and landed class:
  • aim is to win honour and glory in war, especially against France;
  • meaning of the English word ‘policy’ – means fighting the French and conquering their territory.
• For Henry VII:
  • security: plots, frontiers and Channel ports (Britain, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Spain)
  • finance (customs revenues)
  • prestige in Europe, some offensive aims
  • dynastic policy (later marriages)

3. Who participated in foreign policy? King, councillors, nobles, who?

• foreign policy discussed at Great Councils, crown wearings/wearing of purple: Epiphany, Easter, Whitsuntide, All Saints, Christmas; discussed at meetings that are an extension of King’s Council. 224 members during Henry’s reign;
• Morton, Fox (led retinue despite being a bishop), nobles all prominent;
• City of London, not much involved in policy apart from Mayor;
• Parliament not much involved in policy.

4. 1492 Boulogne campaign

• about security, money, prestige
• some key figures stayed home: Morton, Lord Dynham (treasurer)
• Reynold Bray (treasurer of war, president of Council) important in this campaign
• when they got there, policy debated in a Council of War made up of the King, nobles, captains, councillors. Debate the Articles of War, but unusual campaign because Henry already knew before he went that he wanted to settle.

5. Scotland – security

• James IV helps Warbeck in 1495 and 1496;
• 1497 James IV accepts truce of Ayton. Having missed opportunity to profit from the Cornish rising, expels Warbeck and agrees to series of truces;
• 1502 treaty of Perpetual Peace and marriage of James to Margaret Tudor.

6. Ireland (not strictly ‘foreign’) – security

• May 1487, Simnel crowned in Ireland as Edward VI, and invaded England. Policy in Ireland a mixture of carrot and stick: general pardon, followed by bonds and new oath of allegiance.
• 1491-2 Warbeck in Ireland. Increase in royal and military intervention. Warbeck back 1495. Sir Edward Poynings sent (1494-5) to crush the Yorkists.
• Overall policy to keep the Pale loyal by delegating government to trusted nobles.
• English legislation on retaining adapted for Ireland and the Irish Parliament to meet only with the King’s consent.

7. France – security, prestige

• 1489-92 key period. Security, prestige: Henry seeks to aid Brittany against quick absorption by Charles VIII, and wants France not to support Henry’s rebels.
• 1489: Henry agreed to aid Brittany by the treaty of Redon (Feb). 1st expedition to Brittany: 6000 troops were sent under Lord Daubeney. But Anne of Brittany had to agree to reimburse his expenses, surrender two towns as security, and make no peace, truce or marriage with France without Henry’s consent. Clause added with offensive aim: the Bretons to support any future campaign Henry might undertake against France for the recovery of his ‘right.’
• July 1490: 2nd expedition to Brittany. September: amity between Henry VII, Spain and Maximilian against France. Anne affliliates with this coalition.
• December 1491: Anne gave in and married Charles VIII.
• 1492: Henry VII made a show of strength, offensive and defensive aims (asserted Henry V’s claim to the French Crown). Invaded northern France with 26,000 men. Charles VIII’s eyes were turning to Italy, and his aim was to make a quick treaty. Treaty of Etaples by which Charles VIII agreed to drop his support for Perkin Warbeck and other rebels, to indemnify the costs of Henry’s interventions in Brittany, and to reimburse the arrears of Edward IV’s pension due by 1475 treaty.

8. Spain – dynastic, security

• 1488, negotiations began for the betrothal of Arthur.
• 1489, Medina del Campo: Spain closed to Yorkist pretenders and alliance with England.
• 1501, the marriage to Arthur and Catherine takes place. Arthur died in 1502. Henry negotiates for Henry, his second son. Henry expected to marry Catherine after his fourteenth birthday, but the wedding postponed by Henry VII, who has alternative plans for alliances with the Netherlands and France. In 1503, Elizabeth of York died in childbirth. Henry was able to remarry. He began to negotiate with France, Spain and Netherlands.

9. Netherlands (and HR Empire) – security, finance, dynasty

• Henry wants deal with Maximilian and his son Archduke Philip: trade to increase customs revenues plus Warbeck. NB Margaret of Burgundy (Edward IV’s sister – widow of Charles the Bold) supports Perkin Warbeck. Her dower lands in Netherlands, which give her freedom of action.
• 1496: Magnus Intercursus, trade treaty that also closed the Netherlands to Henry’s dynastic rivals, a major treaty.
• November 1504, Isabella of Castile died: Archduke Philip became the rival of Ferdinand of Aragon for the regency of Castille. Henry VII had to choose. Policy veered towards Philip.
• January 1506: Philip and his wife, Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, blown ashore onto the English coast near Weymouth en route for Castille, Henry VII entertained them for three months. By the treaty of Windsor, he recognized Philip as King of Castille, and the two rulers promised mutual defence and assistance against each other’s rebels. By a second treaty, Philip pledged to marry his sister, Margaret, now regent of the Netherlands, to Henry VII.
• April 1506: Malus Intercursus treaty between Henry and Philip so called because the Netherlanders believed it to be too generous to England. When Philip died (Sept 1506), Henry cheated of his investments (£342k).

10. Successes or not?

• Success achieved against rebels.
• Security from invasion achieved.
• Dynastic marriages so-so. Not much progress in Ireland.
• Commercial treaties overrated: those with the Netherlands had to be unpicked: subordinated trade to security. Henry VIII has to start again with Charles V (son of Philip and Joanna).
• Later foreign policy: huge cost to domestic revenue pulls Henry VII down in later years.
• Henry was lucky that France was embroiled in Italy and Naples after 1494.

 
 

 

Stability?

Henry VII: Founder of Stability or Incompetent Monarch?

In the conventional historiography, Henry VII may be compared to someone learning to ride a bicycle. He thrust himself into the saddle, and after a series of hazards, uncertainties, and potentially serious wobbles, finally achieved stability. The trouble is, this paradigm has passed its sell-by date. It is going to change and change radically, but how and what will emerge at the end of the process?

1. What do we THINK we know about Henry VII? According to Francis Bacon (and S.B. Chrimes):

• ‘He was of an high mind, and loved his own will and his own way; as one that revered himself, and would reign indeed, … not admitting any near or full approach either to his power or to his secrets.’
• ‘He was a prince sad, serious, and full of thoughts and secret observations; and full of notes and memorials in his own hand, especially touching persons; as whom to employ, whom to reward, whom to inquire of, whom to beware of, what were the dependencies, what were the factions, and the like; keeping (as it were) a journal of his thoughts.’
• He was a skilful but prudent statesman: he kept his ‘distance’. He was (as we are told) not a ‘participating’ ruler like Henry VIII, Francis I or Elizabeth I. He did not flaunt his wealth.
• Rapacity grew upon him with increasing years, though behind his avarice lay a principle of statesmanship: control of nobility through fiscal feudalism.
• Financial stability was fundamental to his government: the ideas of Fortescue’s Governance of England were put into practice.
  1. patrimonial kingship (exploitation of Crown estate)
  2. magnificence
  3. conciliar government (to be efficient)
  4. used the latest methods of accounting (Chamber finance)
  5. subordinate the nobility to the monarchy
  6. restored law and order

Fiscal discipline in politics: according to Bacon, ‘The less blood he drew, the more he took of treasure’. Bonds and recognisances (J.R. Lander) used as swords of Damocles to ensure stability in the provinces, even if they finally created a culture of ‘coercion and fear’.

• Henry VII was a significant legislator. Bacon claimed: ‘his times for good commonwealth’s laws did excel’. Henry VII ‘restored law and order’ by attacking retainers and appointing gentry as JPs.
• Henry chose his councillors and ministers wisely, and favoured men of the ‘middle sort’: a class of royal officials were who were entirely dependent upon the king, e.g. Bray, Empson and Dudley.
• The mainspring of his domestic and foreign policy was dynastic security. He used ‘politick’ methods to preserve himself and the Tudor dynasty.
• Stability and royal authority was restored after the Wars of the Roses. Bacon noted in his Fragments, there was now ‘no such thing as any great or mighty subject who might eclipse or overshadow the imperial power.’ Henry VII achieved:
  1. rise in prestige of the Crown (including in Europe);
  2. rise in financial resources of the Crown;
  3. rise in the social authority of the Crown (e.g. vis-à-vis overmighty subjects);
  4. creation of a service nobility;
  5. throne passed on smoothly to son, Henry VIII, thereby ensuring stable Tudor dynasty.

In other words, the effects of the Wars of the Roses were reversed and the power of the monarchy restored. All these points have become entrenched in the historical literature. Unfortunately, most are half-truths, which distract us from a coherent reevaluation of Henry VII.

NB Bacon wrote in 1621 after his impeachment for corruption and dismissal as James I’s Lord Chancellor. He wrote to advise and impress James I in the hope of making a return to power. Bacon’s History of Henry VII is intended to instruct the reader in statecraft through the study of a great practitioner of political cunning, cf. Machiavelli’s The Prince, or Justus Lipsius’s Six Books of Politics (1589). It is not a valid history of the reign of Henry VII.

2. What is now being said about the reign of Henry VII (see chapter 11 of C. Carpenter: The Wars of the Roses (1997).

• Henry VII had a view of kingship and lordship that was different to, and subversive of, that of 15th century England. His view was modelled on the new administrative monarchies of the Continent: France and Brittany.
  1. Henry VII had no experience of English government and administration;
  2. Henry undermined the relationship between Crown and nobility by excessive fiscalism and threats to landed power which destabilized the English monarchy;
  3. Good lordship required the use of social power and the arbitration of noble councils for the good order of society, but this was prejudiced by the anti-aristocratic bias of Henry VII;
  4. Was Henry VII even pursuing a conscious policy against the nobles and in support of gentry rule, or was it basically accidental and a mess;
  5. For Henry VII, service (= aristocratic service) meant subordination. Yet if the nobles were disabled and their local power prejudiced or subverted by gentry promotions (e.g. Warwickshire), their territorial power could not be used to suppress revolts, e.g. 1497 Cornish revolt and threat in North. For Carpenter, this is axiomatic;
  6. When Henry VII attacked his subjects’ lands, he followed King John, Edward II, and Richard II – no coincidence that 1509 complaints appealed to Magna Carta.
• 15th century kingship held that king and nobles worked in partnership, and king was ‘first among equals’. Landed power was respected by Crown, because land was the basis of the social power of the nobility in the regions which ensured the subjection of the realm (i.e. the masses) to authority. Power in early-modern = social power, which was hitherto predicated on land.
• The notion that Fortescue’s Governance of England represented the ideals of 15th century English kingship is a fallacy. The Governance was written in exile in north-eastern France in 1460s with a view to securing the restoration of Henry VI on the principles of French monarchical government, i.e. reflects the values of Continental new administrative monarchies, or Renaissance monarchy. This is why the convergence with Henry VII appears to be complete. Fortescue is convergent with the old paradigm of Henry VII’s ‘new monarchy’ = Tudor ‘imperial’ kingship.
• There is massive intellectual confusion over Henry VII’s alleged fiscalism.
  1. The purpose of bonds and recognisances was to subdue the nobles, but if the system was working, there would be no additional income for the Crown. If the regime was stable, there would be no forfeitures. Historians can’t have it both ways;
  2. The trick was to preserve the nobles’ abuse of power while preserving the power itself, but Henry VII’s attacks were indiscriminate;
  3. Henry VII actually caused instability in the shires by lack of judgement over how to delegate and to whom. E.g. in the North the Earl of Northumberland was killed in a tax revolt in 1489. The Council of the North aim to subordinate the nobility, but the ensuing feud between Archbishop Savage and the earl of Northumberland’s son reduces to region to chaos;
  4. problem with issue of bonds and recognisances is that no one has ever separated out political obligations from genuine debts to the Crown.
• England was not potentially unstable in 1485:
  1. Henry VII was the victor at Bosworth. He replaced an unpopular king who was already dead;
  2. no real rival;
  3. no great threat from the nobles, no super-nobles left alive;
  4. no cadet branch of the royal family;
  5. Richard III has no direct heir; he had already removed the princes in the Tower [Edward V and Richard of York];
  6. Henry VII married Elizabeth of York himself [eldest surviving daughter of Edward IV]
  7. the leading Yorkist claimant [Edward, Earl of Warwick] imprisoned in the Tower.
• Yet Henry VII was troubled by plots and rebellions for longer than he should have been:
  1. Lambert Simnel is supported in the North by Richard III’s old affinity;
  2. 1495: support for Perkin Warbeck reached into Henry VII’s household (Sir William Stanley, brother of Henry’s own stepfather, betrayed him);
  3. 1497: fulcrum of the reign. Cornish rebels reach Blackheath; turmoil in the North/war on the Border; Perkin Warbeck lands and lays seige to Exeter. Where are the nobles/local authorities? Henry VII has to rely on his councillors and household men.
• I wrote in Tudor England that ‘Henry VII governed England through his household and Council’. John Watts and Christine Carpenter do not deny that this is correct: what they say is that, if it is so, it was a radical divergence from the norms of 15th century monarchy, and a dangerous narrowing of political power = ‘new monarchy’/new administrative monarchy, i.e. Crown managerialism in place of noble consensus.
• Henry VII’s financial success is vastly overrated:
  1. Crown income is £113,000 per annum at the end of the reign;
  2. But it was £120,000 per annum under Richard III;
  3. And £160,000 per annum under Edward III.

3. Is Henry VII’s success all smoke and mirrors?

• Henry VII’s England is a bureaucrat’s paradise. The bureaucrats were out of control: all on the make.
• Henry VII’s ‘new men’ were ripping off landowners, and fixing their own deals in order to build landed fortunes for themselves;
• Henry was too mean to pay his servants properly: a culture of acquisitiveness permeated the administration (cf 1590s). E.g. Bray (former servant of Margaret Beaufort). Classic instance (apart from Empson and Dudley) is Sir Henry Wyatt, who buys land at knock-down prices from people who can’t pay their debts to the Crown;
• Does Henry VII know they are doing this, and pretends not to know, in order to be able to clobber them if they put a foot wrong, or is he just incompetent?
• Henry neglects the militia and the navy;
• He relies on his household men and mercenaries for military recruitment;
• The number of ships owned by the Crown falls from 15 to 5 during his reign;
• He relies on diplomacy backed (after death of Arthur and Elizabeth of York) by massive subsidies to Continental rulers;
• He is lucky that France is concentrating on Italy and Naples in this period;
• His trade treaties are vastly overrated: those with the Netherlands had to be unpicked and sorted out by Thomas More in 1515 on the grounds that they sacrificed trade to Henry’s concern to ensure that pretenders or rebels would not be harboured abroad.

4. Henry VII passes on his throne to his son, but not automatically

His innermost courtiers wished primarily to ensure their own survival. Henry died at 11 p.m. on 21 April 1509, but his death was kept secret until the afternoon of the 23rd, when it was revealed to the main body of councillors and Henry VIII’s accession was proclaimed. This delay gave those at the seat of power time to consolidate their position. A general pardon was issued that included treasons and felonies committed in Henry VII’s reign, and Empson and Dudley, the two most hated Councillors, were arrested. They were imprisoned in the Tower for a year, and then executed on fabricated charges. This was a ploy to win popularity, and distract attention from events at Court.

• Empson and Dudley were unpopular with their colleagues in the Council: they were the ‘new boys’ in the class, and not linked into the network of feoffees, marriage and mutual support that characterized the inner circle;
• Dudley especially hated as the ambitious Young Turk of the Council of Henry VII. He had been the first and only non-clerical president of the King’s Council;
• The courtiers of Henry VII made sure that Henry VIII (although 18 years old bar a few weeks) was not allowed fully to be King or to enjoy full sovereignty. Archbishop Warham, Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, and Richard Fox, held the three senior offices in the kingdom and exercised control over policy as well as patronage, and generally ran the country until Wolsey liberated Henry VIII from these constraints. NB Henry VIII was not even allowed to sign his name to royal gifts or letters patent without the counter-signature of his ‘minders’ – i.e. bureaucrats out of control?

5. Conclusion:

• ‘It may be that what we see is less a forward-looking monarch than one who had an imperfect understanding of his job’ (Carpenter).
• Was Henry’s politics one of necessity or one of incompetence? Or to put it at its lowest common denominator: Were the nobles ungovernable by 1485 without extreme royal sanctions? Had the Wars of the Roses changed the rules of the game?
• Or was England subsumed by a Continental preoccupation with new administrative monarchy? Were the norms of Renaissance monarchy encapsulated within Henry VII’s agenda?
• The questions cannot yet be answered, only debated. What is certain is that the old platitudes are gone for ever: no longer is the reign of Henry VII the easiest topic on the ‘A’-level examination syllabus.