Control over nobility

• 6 methods Henry used to control the nobles

  • Acts of Attainder - take land away from any who betrayed him
  • Bonds & recognisances - financial penalties to ensure good behaviour of nobles
  • Patronage - giving of positions of power, titles, land
  • Feudal dues - control & raise money from noble marriages, wardship & land
  • Limiting retaining - nobles using servants & local gentry as their own private army
  • Membership of the Council's
• Successes of Acts of Attainder

  • were reversible so land could be given back to nobles who had proven themselves loyal through good behaviour
  • could ruin a noble family economically & socially by removing basis of all their power (their land)
• Failures of Acts of Attainder

  • only 46 out of 138 attainders reversed & terms of reversal often very harsh & didn't include complete restoration of lands
  • had to increase number he passed in last 5 years of reign - suggests policy had not work. 1495-1500 passed 24; 1504-09 passed 51
• Successes of membership of councils

  • only 37 members of the Order of the Garter - very prestigious & ultimate mark of Henry's favour
  • members of privy council were effectively involved in running country so it was a position of real power & gave closeness to the King
  • Council Learned in Law set up to control nobles & extract finances - these members were usually skilled lawyers
• Failures of membership of councils

  • Henry may have included nobles in these but only did it as a token gesture & never really included them in his inner circle
  • only ever close to 3 nobles: Jasper Tudor, Earl of Oxford & Lord Stanley
• Successes of patronage

  • most important titles (Duke, Earl) & lands were given to those who had done most to support him in exile and at Bosworth - e.g. John de Vere, Earl of Oxford was given offices of Great Chamberlain and Lord Admiral
  • applied to both gentry & nobility so made system more meritocratic
  • Henry made it clear titles & land would come as the result of loyalty not as a way of hopefully buying future loyalty
  • selective in who received titles - made them more valued
• Failures of patronage

  • granting of lands & titles to nobles could potentially make rivals more powerful & so more of a threat
• Successes of feudal dues

  • effective way of raising money - e.g. Duchess of Buckingham fined £7000 for marrying without King's permission and her son was later fined £7000 for accepting his inheritance before he was 21
  • increased control & revenue - increased revenue from wardship from £350 in 1487 to £6000 in 1507
  • way of imposing justice & controlling nobles - e.g. Earl of Northumberland ordered to pay £10,000 for raping a royal ward
• Failures of feudal dues

  • stretched spirit of law to breaking point - nobles felt they were just being exploited & ruled through fear - not a long term way of gaining support of nobles & of raising finances
  • deeply unpopular amongst nobility - alienated many of nobles from King
  • Dudley confessed he had acted illegally for more than 80 cases, falsely claiming people owed fuedal dues where no such obligation existed
• Successes of bonds & recognisances

  • proven to work - 2 recognsiances were imposed on Marquis of Dorset who had defected from Henry VII In France & after 14 years when the Marquis had proven his loyalty (put down Cornish rebellion) recognisances were cancelled
  • Rarely used to acc raise cash, value was a threat hanging over nobility - e.g. Earl of Northumberland had £10,000 imposed but only ever had to pay £2000 - money less important than maintaining order/loyalty -clever system
  • easy to impose - 1485-1509 46 out of 62 noble families were under them
  • could raise money - by 1505 raised £35,000
• Failures of bonds & recognisances

  • deeply unpopular w nobility - alienated them from King
  • Organised by Council Learned and the Law - widely hated, acted without jury & virtually had free hand in fixing penalties
  • Empson & Dudley believed to be corrupt & participants of system of blackmail - Dudley confessed there were 84 cases where he believed people had been unjustly forced to pay
• Successes of limiting retaining

  • main source of threat nobles posed was their private armies, they also played important role in Wars of the Roses so removing them would help bring stability to the country
  • The 1504 Act required King's personal permission for nobles to be given licenses for private armies so problem was under Henry's direct control
  • brought in money - 1504 act had penalty of £5 per month per illegal retainer - when applied to Lord Burgavenny in 1506 resulted in fine of £70,550
  • are no written records of nobles keeping soldiers by end of Henry's reign - policy successful
• Failures of limiting retaining

  • had to apply it to both supporters & enemies - e.g. when visiting Earl of Oxford (who fought for him at Bosworth) he was greet by all of the Earl's men so had to punish him
  • still relied on nobles' armies to protect crown interests in times of emergency - e.g. in 1486 Earl of Northumberland's force rescued king from an ambush in Yorksire
• Other ways Henry was successful in handling the nobles

  • Henry was not anti-noble but his instinct was not to trust nobles who had a large local power base - served him well as were no noble inspired rebellions
• General/other ways Henry was unsuccessful in handling the nobles

  • felt more insecure after Arthur's death in 1502
  • he tried to rule over not with the nobility - undermined, destabilised & weakened the monarchy
  • betrayal of Sir William Stanley (fought for him at Bosworth) in 1495 represented a crisis in government
  • didn't understand nature of kingship or grasp need for mutual trust between the King & nobility
  • disaffected nobles supported Simnel & Warbeck risings - presence of Lord Lovell, Earl of Lincoln on battlefield of Stoke 1487 fighting against Henry shows threat nobles really posed
• What Henry should've learnt about nobles from Bosworth

  • difficult to guarantee loyalty - nobles are untrustworthy
  • noble families powerful - able to switch sides & ultimately decide fate of England
  • failed to understand he was able to take throne because Richard III was thoroughly disliked by nobility - didn't learn from this