Chapter 10 Flashcards
General change to position to elites under Henry VIII
The reign of Henry VIlI witnessed a dynamic period in English society in which remnants of the feudal system still existed, but, in contrast, there was the growth of a professional and commercial bourgeoisie. However, the traditional nobles (or peers) and the greater gentry still represented a social elite which wielded considerable political and economic influence.
What happened to the size of the peerage?
The size of the peerage increased during the reign of Henry VIII, though by the end of the reign there were only nine more peers than there had been at the beginning. The creation of new peers had been to a large extent offset both by ‘natural wastage and by the number of attainders during the reign. Most of the new peers had achieved their rank as a result of successful royal service as courtiers or soldiers. In some cases this was enhanced by a close family relationship; for example the king’s brother-in-law Edward Seymour was elevated to the earldom of Hertford.
What happened to dukedoms?
England had only one duke when Henry VIII came to the throne, Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who never enjoyed royal favour.
Henry VIII only promoted two non-royal ducal titles, Norfolk and Suffolk.
Their holders served the king as soldiers and courtiers. There was a distinction to be made between the two. Norfolk was restored to the title which had been enjoyed by his father. In contrast, Suffolk seems to have been promoted on account of the closeness of his personal relationship with the king in a move which prompted criticism in some quarters, for example by Erasmus.
How did Henry use the nobility to maintain authority?
Henry did sometimes bestow property on nobles to enable them to exert royal authority in particular areas. Thus, Suffolk was endowed with property in Lincolnshire after the rebellion there in 1536 and the king ordered him to move there to ensure that he could exert that authority in person. Similarly, John, Baron Russell, was raised to the peerage and endowed with lands in Devon to bolster royal authority in the south-west following the execution of the Marquess of Exeter.
Other roles of the nobility
Nobles were expected to have great households and offer hospitality to their affinity and neighbours. To do so too openly could make a noble an object of royal suspicion, as was the case with Buckingham. On the other hand, noble households remained critical to the maintenance of local influence and to the recruitment of royal armies. (The Earl of Shrewsbury raised over 4000 men for the invasion of France in 1513.) Bastard feudalism had not died away completely.
Evidence the nobility was being brought more under the control of the monarch
Gradually, the nobility was being brought more under the control of the monarch. This helps to explain the fate of Thomas Fiennes, Baron Dacre of the South. In 1541 not only was he tried for the murder of a neighbour’s servant but he was convicted and hanged like a common criminal.
Many other nobles fell victim to Henry VIlI in more orthodox fashion. The Duke of Buckingham was executed for treason on the vaguest of charges in
521. The king’s relatives, Henry Pole Baron Montague and Henry Courtenay Marquess of Exeter, were accused of treasonable conspiracy and executed in
1538. Montague’s mother, Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury, having been attainted of treason, was held in the Tower for over two years before eventually being executed, arguably the most vindictive of all of Henry’s punitive actions.
Lords Darcy and Hussey were executed for their roles in the rebellion of 1536, Henry’s actions being perfectly justified according to the legal standards of the day.
What happened to the number and make-up of the gentry
John Guy has suggested that there were about 5000 gentry families in England in 1540. Some aspects of gentry status were specific. Knighthoods were conferred as a sign of royal favour, and it was assumed that a knight would possess an income which reflected his status. Susan Brigden has suggested that there were about 200 knightly families in 1524. A gentleman who was entitled to bear a coat of arms was deemed an esquire. Such status was certified by the royal heralds. By 1530 heralds were unwilling to grant or confirm the title to anyone with lands worth less than £10 per annum or goods worth under £300. The term ‘gentleman’ itself lacked legal precision, and gentility was often acquired as a result of the proceeds of office, profession or business.
Though it is difficult to be precise, the number of gentry increased during the reign of Henry VIII.
What happened to gentry role in administration?
Moreover, the increase in the number of justices of the peace (JPs) increased the numbers of those who participated in local administration. In addition to the ]Ps, many other members of the gentry were drawn into unpaid administration on behalf of the Crown. Members of the gentry were increasingly keen on their sons acquiring the legal training which would make them better able to take on such roles as could offer the basis for local advancement. Moreover, whereas the Crown’s local administrators had formerly been likely to be clergymen, increasingly they were laymen, whose office holding often generated the income which would bring about landownership and gentry status.
How did the position of commoners change?
There was little dramatic change in the standard of living of commoners during the first half of the reign of Henry VIII. However, the rise in the rate of inflation did lead to a drop in real incomes which contributed to the ill feeling felt by many towards the imposition of the Amicable Grant. The social structure remained substantially unchanged, with the vast majority of people having very few possessions and little chance of regular and secure employment. Governments were always fearful of such people, with some justification because, while full-scale rebellion was relatively rare, outbreaks of disorder were much more common - and these were held to upset the good ordering of society.
Situation with Wales before 1536
How was the administration of Wales changed in 1536?
The act:
• divided Wales into shire counties which operated on the same basis as their
English counterparts
• gave the Welsh shires direct representation in the House of Commons at Westminster for the first time
• brought Wales into the same legal framework as England.
In practice this meant that Wales became incorporated into England with little of a separate identity except for the survival of the Welsh language in some parts of the country. Control over Wales continued to be exercised on the Crown’s behalf. However, increasingly this became the responsibility of members of the aristocracy, such as the earls of Pembroke, and by members of an anglicised Welsh gentry who controlled county politics, were elected to Parliament and became increasingly prominent within the legal profession.
What happened to the English palatinates?
Three English counties, Lancashire, Cheshire and Durham, were technically palatinates. In other words, they were separate jurisdictions from the rest of the kingdom. This mattered little in Lancashire and Cheshire, where the exercise of palatinate jurisdiction had long since fallen back into royal hands.
Durham was still technically separate, with palatinate jurisdiction being exercised by the bishop. The Act Resuming Liberties to the Crown of 1536 reduced the level of independence enjoyed by the bishop, but did not destroy it completely. For example, the palatinate court of chancery continued to operate. The change therefore seems to have been as much evolutionary as revolutionary.
What happened to the administration of the Anglo-Welsh border?
The lands which were governed as part of the Principality of Wales, along with the four bordering English counties - Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire - came under the jurisdiction of the Council of Wales and the Marches, which was based at Ludlow in Shropshire. This offered relatively cheap and local access to the law and could therefore be seen as a benefit to the area under its jurisdiction.
List of regional gov and administration changes (5)
Wales
Welsh border
Scottish border
Palatinates
Council in North
Why was the Anglo-Scottish border a problem?
The border with Scotland was difficult to police; much of it was remote and often inhospitable in the winter months. Both sides of the border had a reputation for lawlessness. Cattle and sheep rustling were rife and violence
was common.
Changes to administration of Anglo-Scottish border
In order to deal with such problems the border with Scotland was split into three marches, each under the jurisdiction of a warden. The filling of these posts could be difficult for the king. Appointing from a local noble family ran the risk that the noble would exploit his office to enhance his own power at the king’s expense. In any case Henry had little time for such border magnate families as the Percies and the Dacres. The other option was to appoint local officers who came from the gentry class (e.g.
Thomas Lord Wharton, only recently raised to the peerage and a man of relatively humble origins, was appointed in 1542) or those who were complete outsiders: these two groups were more likely to owe complete loyalty to the king, but they had limited ability to influence the conduct of local people who often saw themselves as owing a primary loyalty to a local magnate.
WHAT DID HE DO?
Changes to The Council in the North
The north of England posed problems of governance to a regime based far away in London, This was demonstrated particularly strongly with the huge number of supporters of the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536. This led Henry and Cromwell to re-establish the Council as a permanent body based in York with a professional staff. It had both administrative and legal functions. It showed its worth by helping to keep the north quiet during the summer of rebellions in 1549.
Initial Church situation
At the start of Henry VIII’s reign there was little sign that there would be fundamental changes to the English Church. Although complaints were made occasionally about, for example, the worldliness of the clergy, on the whole the Church appears to have fulfilled the requirements of the bulk of the people to whom it ministered. There had even been some improvement in the early sixteenth century in the quality of the clergy and Cardinal Wolsey had dissolved some redundant monasteries, using their endowments for educational purposes.
No one would credibly have predicted the destruction of Catholic England.
Changes to Church in 1530s and impact
However, in the 1530s a major change took place in the English Church when Henry VIII broke with Rome and became head of a new English Church. Though a small minority of people undoubtedly welcomed the religious change this brought, there was no groundswell of popular support for the changes. There were executions of some who denied the royal supremacy, most notably Sir Thomas More.
Monasteries were an important feature of the appeal of the pre-Reformation Church. Cromwell’s dissolution of the monasteries, begun in 1536, and his royal injunctions of 1536, attacked many of the traditional practices of Catholicism, such as holy days, pilgrimages and the veneration of relics. This provoked fears that these reforms might be accompanied by an attack on parish churches. The most important consequence of this was a major rebellion which broke out in the autumn of 1536 in Lincolnshire and parts of the north of England; this became known as the Pilgrimage of Grace.
Long-lasting social consequences of religious upheaval (4)
- A huge amount of land was removed from the Church and taken by the Crown. This theoretically should have made the king more powerful. However, the expense of the warlike foreign policy of Henry’s final years led to the widespread sale of Church and monastic property, often at knock-down prices, thereby increasing both the size and the wealth of the landholding gentry. By 1547 almost two thirds of the monastic land acquired by the Crown had been sold off or granted away.
- Many monasteries had been noted for their educational provision. With their demise, most monastic schools were lost also.
- Many monks and nuns were rendered unemployed at a stroke. Some monks were able to secure employment as secular priests and many others received pensions. The position of nuns was very precarious.
- Some monasteries played a very considerable role in the communities in which they were situated. As well as providing education, they also offered employment and business opportunities. Some major monastic churches, such as Durham, were the cathedrals of their dioceses; many others doubled up as the local parish church. Dissolution was seen as a potential disaster and some communities went to considerable lengths to try to protect their monasteries. At Hexham in Northumberland, for example, royal commissioners were prevented from beginning the process of dissolution by a gathering of armed men.
Opposition to taxes
Just as in Henry VII’s reign, the imposition of taxes to pay for foreign wars brought instability and disorder. There were complaints in Yorkshire, particularly in upland areas, about the subsidy to raise money for Henry’s campaigns in 1513. The taxation demands for some of the areas affected were eventually written off.
Similarly, many refused to pay the Amicable Grant in 1525.
What happened in the resistance to the Amicable Grant?
Opposition was geographically widespread, but the strongest resistance occurred in north Essex and south Suffolk. The Earl of Essex reported that 1000 people had gathered at the Essex-Suffolk border and were determined to resist payment. The dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk also faced about 4000 taxation resisters, in particular, unemployed cloth workers who found it impossible to pay the levy. The dukes handled the matter sensitively and the king backed down. Wolsey publicly begged the king to offer pardon to those whom he saw as his Suffolk countrymen and the leaders of the resistance were treated leniently. The whole business demonstrated very clearly that Henry could not operate in defiance of the taxpaying classes. When next he opted to invade France he supplemented his extraordinary revenue with cash from the sale of monastic lands.
List of Key events in the Lincolnshire Rising and Pilgrimage of Grace
1536
2 Oct
Lincolnshire Rising begins at Louth
4 Oct
Lincolnshire Rising spreads to Horncastle; murder of Dr Rayne, chancellor of the diocese of Lincoln
7 Oct
Lincolnshire rebels converge on Lincoln
Cathedral
8 Oct
Pilgrimage of Grace proper begins in the East Riding of Yorkshire under the leadership of Robert
Aske
10 Oct
Pilgrimage of Grace spreads to the West Riding of Yorkshire
18 Oct
Lincolnshire Rising ends
20 Oct
Pontefract Castle
surrendered to the rebels
25 Oct
Rebellion spreads to high Pennines and Lake District
26 Oct
Rebels meet Duke of
Norfolk near Doncaster
Nov
East and West Riding
rebels gradually disperse
3 Dec
Royal proclamations offering pardon to rebels
1537
16 Jan
Renewed rebellion in the East Riding of Yorkshire led by Sir Francis Bigod
Origin and spread of Lincolnshire Rising and POG
Together, the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace comprised the largest single rebellion in the history of Tudor England. It began as a rising which started in Lincolnshire in early October 1536, spread over the Humber into the East Riding of Yorkshire and continued from there into parts of the West Riding around Wakefield and Pontefract.
A second and more militant rising started in the dales between Ripon and Richmond, spread west into Cumberland, Westmorland and north Lancashire, north into Durham and southwest into the Craven area of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The rebels here were more radicalised and more hostile towards the fontry because of the strength of their grievances against their landlords. Class antagonism was clear from letters sent out in the name of Captain Poverty: in away which contrasted markedly with the Lincolnshire and the East Risings. The recreation of the ‘Captain Poverty’ movement helps to explain the rengs. of rebellion in Cumberland early in 1537.
