English society at the end of the fifteenth century Flashcards
What was English society like by the end of the fifteenth century ?
English society at the end of the fifteenth century, while not as rigidly hierarchical as that of France or Spain, was exceedingly stratified (i.e. layered).
- At one level society had changed little from that which had existed during the high point of the feudal system.
1. The apex of the system under the monarch comprised the great landowners and senior churchmen.
2. The base of the system comprised those who laboured on their behalf. - In contrast, society also witnessed the growth of a professional and mercantile bourgeoisie who had become increasingly important in London and the major provincial cities such as Norwich and Bristol.
- The remnants of the feudal system were still apparent in the law, social
relationships and attitudes.
However, economic pressures, had increased social mobility and created alarm amongst more conservative-minded members of the upper classes who attempted vainly to uphold traditional values by passing sumptuary laws which proved unenforceable.
KEY TERM
~~~
1. feudal system: the medieval system by which society was structured depending on relationships in which land was held in return for some form of service; at the top end of the structure land was held of the monarch in return for military service, and at the bottom serfs were required to give labour services to their lord in return for the lord’s protection
- sumptuary laws: laws that attempted to regulate how individuals should dress, depending on their social status
Nobility:
How did the peerage maintain influence in landownership and local governance?
The peerage, (nobility) which consisted of no more than about 50 or 60 men, maintained influence by continuing to dominate landownership. It was not a closed caste—peerage families regularly died out but were replaced by others who had acquired or bought the king’s favour. This meant the peerage was constantly refreshed by those loyal to the Crown. The Crown often relied on these families to help maintain order in the countryside, reinforcing their role in local governance.
Key term:
Caste - a class or group of people who inherit exclusive privileges or are perceived as socially distinct
Nobility:
How was Henry 7th relationship different of that to Edward IV before him and Henry VIII after him?
Henry VII, unlike Edward IV before him or Henry VIII after him, was reluctant to create new peerage titles.
This is possibly because he was deeply distrustful of the nobility as a class.
- Only trusted Lancastrian military commanders such as the Earl of Oxford and Lord Daubeney had much political influence under Henry.
- He never really trusted the Earl of Northumberland, even though he had swung the Battle of Bosworth in Henry’s favour by betraying Richard III.
Nevertheless, Henry relied on Northumberland to control the northeast of England on behalf of the Crown.
Nobility:
What methods did Henry 7th use to control the nobility ?
- Henry’s most important method of controlling the nobility was through bonds and recognisances.
- Bonds and recognisances were legal documents used by Henry VII to secure the loyalty and good behaviour of the nobility. A bond was a written agreement where a noble promised to pay a large sum of money if they failed to meet certain conditions (like keeping the peace), while a recognisance was a formal acknowledgment of an existing debt or obligation. Henry used them to create financial pressure—nobles risked huge penalties if they acted disloyally or illegally. This helped Henry control overmighty subjects and maintain law and order without relying on large-scale military force. - However, the key to the nobles’ power was the system which nineteenth-century historians labelled bastard feudalism - also known as ‘retaining’.
- Wealthy magnates (the leading and most wealthy members of the nobility) recruited knights and gentlemen (also known as ‘retainers’) to serve them as administrators or accountants, or sometimes for military purposes.
- Potentially, noblemen could use their retained men to bring unlawful influence on others in a court case, or use them against the Crown, so Henry sought to limit the military power of the nobility through the use of legislation against retaining.
- However, at the same time he remained conscious of the fact that loyal retainers were essential to maintain the Crown’s security.
Nobility:
What was bastard feudalism and how did Henry VII respond to it?
Bastard feudalism was a system of mutual obligation: nobles (magnates) gave retainers rewards like land, local office, or money in return for service, including military support.
Victorian historians saw it as corrupt and a cause of the Wars of the Roses. However, historian K.B. McFarlane argued it was a practical response to the time and only destabilising when the monarchy was weak.
Henry VII feared its potential for unrest, so he passed Acts in 1487 and 1504 to restrict retaining, and punished nobles who abused it, e.g. Lord Bergavenny in 1506—though he had to act carefully, as the nobility were still a key source of power.
Nobility:
What limits on retaining were introduced during Henry VII’s reign?
- In 1486, peers and MPs had to take an oath against illegal retaining or being illegally retained — though “illegality” was left undefined.
- In 1487, a law against retaining was passed.
- In 1504, this was reinforced: only the king could grant licences for retaining.
- This power lasted only for Henry VII’s lifetime.
• A key example: Lord Bergavenny was indicted in 1507 for illegal retaining and fined £100,000, though he likely paid only £1,000 and was later pardoned by Henry VIII.
Gentry:
Who were the greater gentry and what role did they play in late 15th-century society?
• The greater gentry ranked just below the peerage and were often major landowners by the late 1400s.
• Figures like Sir Reginald Bray sought knighthoods to confirm their social status.
• In 1490, there were about 500 knights.
• Though knights originally had military duties, by this time it was expected they would assist in local administration.
• According to John Guy, peers and knights together owned 15–20% of the country’s land and formed a homogeneous elite with a common outlook based on landownership.
Gentry:
What was the structure and definition of the lesser gentry in the late 15th century?
• Esquires and ‘mere gentry’ were far more numerous than the greater gentry.
• An esquire could be:
1. The eldest son of a knight
2. The younger son of a baron
3. A man officially invested as an esquire
4. A magistrate or someone of wealth
• A ‘gentleman’ was harder to define — it was largely based on local recognition by neighbours.
Gentry:
How could members of the gentry be identified, and how did their lifestyles vary?
The greater gentry could be identified by:
1. Holding a knighthood
2. A coat of arms authenticated by the College of Arms
3. Having a considerable income
4. Owning an imposing country residence or having courtly connections
• They had high social prestige, often dominating local offices.
• The lesser gentry lived more modestly, often resembling the yeomanry in lifestyle and having more local rather than national ambitions or influence.
Churchmen:
How did the role and status of clergy men vary enormously ?
Where were all clergy tried ?
The Church was hugely important, not merely for its spiritual role but also as a great landowner. The social status of the clergy varied enormously.
- At the lower parish level, curates and chantry priests were modestly rewarded for dealing with the spiritual needs of ordinary folk.
- On the other hand, bishops and the abbots of larger religious houses were important figures who were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and who often had political roles to undertake.
Where were all clergy tried ?
Church influence was all-pervasive and the Church even had its own courts. All clergy were tried in these, as were those convicted of ‘religious crimes’ such as adultery.
Gentry:
How did Henry respond to Martin V, Pope declaration that England rather than the Pope Governed the Church of England ?
Martin V, Pope from 1417 to 1431, famously declared that the king of England rather than the Pope governed the Church in England.
- Henry VII tended to use that power to appoint as bishops only men who had legal training and whose administrative competence was valued more than their spirituality.
The two most important clergymen of the reign, John Morton and Richard Fox, both came into this category. - Moreover, the king was reluctant to appoint men whose social background was aristocratic. The higher clergy were thus becoming less socially exclusive than had once been the case.
Commoners:
What was the structure and role of commoners in late 15th-century England?
Below the nobility, gentry, and higher clergy were the commoners.
- Top of the commoners: ‘middling sort’:
- Based in Cities and Towns
- At the top level of the commoner group were those known as the ‘middling sort’, the rich merchants and craftsmen.
Role:
In towns and cities, the relatively small number of educated professionals, of whom the most numerous and influential group were lawyers, exercised considerable influence, often in collaboration with wealthier merchants. - 2nd Top:
- Lower down the social scale, but still considered respectable, came shopkeepers and skilled tradesmen.
Role:
Such groups tended to dominate the borough corporations (town councils) and also played a key role in organisations such as guilds and lay confraternities which were a common feature of urban life in pre-Reformation England. Reformation: movement opposing the Catholic Church, resulting in the establishment of Protestant and reformed churches - Rural Commoners: Peasants
- In the countryside the middling sort comprised yeomen farmers.
Role:
Farmed substantial properties for an increasingly sophisticated market economy. The decline in population after Black Death reduced the demand for land therefore reduced land values brought about this group: ‘peasant aristocraticy’.
- Below yeomen came husbandmen who typically kept smaller farms than yeomen and often worked for gentry or yeomen to supplement income. - Bottom of the hierarchy: Labourers
- Labourers were usually dependent for income on the sale of their labour, though in some cases they could supplement their irregular income through the planting of vegetables or the exercise of grazing rights.
-Their position was very insecure.
Regional Divisions:
What regional agricultural differences existed in England during Henry VII’s reign?
Though both relatively small and politically relatively unified, England did demonstrate regional variations, many of which stemmed from differences in agriculture.
- A line drawn roughly from the mouth of the Tees to Weymouth in Dorset reveals these contrasts, although even within each area further distinctions could be made.
- Roughly three-quarters of the population lived below this line, which divided the country into two basic agricultural zones. - South and east of the line, mixed farming predominated, especially in the more densely populated counties such as Norfolk, Suffolk, and Kent.
- In contrast, the more sparsely populated areas to the north and west focused on pastoral farming, particularly the rearing of sheep, cattle, and horses.
- There were exceptions to this pattern: pastoral farming was common in the Fens and the wood pastures of the Kent and Sussex Weald, while grain farming and fruit growing thrived in Herefordshire and the Welsh border counties.
Regional Divisions:
How were regional differences perceived in England during this period?
Although England was politically unified, contemporaries were certainly aware of its regional differences.
- Londoners, in particular, looked down on northerners, often viewing them as uncivilised or savage.
- On the other hand, northerners were envious of the perceived wealth and prosperity of the south.
These cultural and economic perceptions reinforced the sense of division, even though the country as a whole remained relatively small and unified.
Regional Divisions:
How was Regional identity in England during Henry VII’s reign shaped by local structures and traditions?
Regional identity in England during Henry VII’s reign was shaped by local structures and traditions, even though the country was becoming more united overall.
- Local government helped shape identity: Justice was increasingly organised by county, so people often identified with their county towns, which usually had important buildings like jails and major churches. This gave each area a bit of its own character.
- Magnates (powerful nobles) often had influence that crossed county boundaries, which meant power wasn’t always neatly tied to one area. For example, a magnate could control land or justice across several counties, blending or complicating local identities.
- Religion also reinforced local identity: Many communities had local saints’ cults, which made pilgrimage sites (like Canterbury and Durham) important to regional pride and spirituality. These religious centres made people feel connected to a particular place.
BUT, historian Derek Keene argues that despite all these regional differences, the people of medieval England shared a stronger sense of national identity than ever before — thanks to shared language and growing ideas of nationhood.
Social discontent and rebellions: To what extent was social discontent during Henry’s reign a serious problem?
During much of the second half of the fifteenth century, living conditions for the poor appeared to be improving.
- Real wages seem to have increased.
However, towards the end of the fifteenth century inflationary pressures were becoming more evident.
- Though evidence points tentatively towards a further slight increase in real wages in the 1490s, by the following decade this situation seems to have reversed.
Compared with later in the Tudor period, there does not seem to have been much social discontent.
England also seems largely to have avoided the subsistence crises which every so often affected some other countries.
- Subsistence Crisis:
when harvest failure raises food prices to such an extent that significant numbers of the poor die from starvation
Social discontent and rebellions:
What two rebellions broke out during Henry 7th reign and why ?
Two rebellions did take place in Henry VII’s reign:
- in Yorkshire in 1489
- in Cornwall in 1497.
In each case the main catalyst (or trigger) was taxation.
Social discontent and rebellions:
The Yorkshire Rebellion 1489 - Causes, events and conclusion.
Cause, Leadership, and Motives:
- The Yorkshire Rebellion of 1489 was sparked by resentment over taxation granted by Parliament in order to finance Henry VII’s planned military campaign in Brittany.
- The people of Yorkshire were particularly hostile to this tax, especially as they had already suffered from poor harvests and believed they should be exempt from paying due to their financial hardship.
- The rebellion became especially notorious due to the murder of the Earl of Northumberland, who was held responsible by the locals for enforcing the unpopular taxation. According to the historian Polydore Vergil, Northumberland was murdered by his own tenants as an act of resentment against the tax.
- However, what enabled the murder to take place was that his retainers – the men meant to protect him – abandoned him in his hour of need.
- This may have been a deliberate act of revenge, as Northumberland had previously betrayed Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, leading to deep mistrust among his supporters.)
Key Events (Chronologically):
1. In April 1489, riots and protests erupted in the North Riding of Yorkshire.
2. The Earl of Northumberland attempted to collect the tax but was confronted by angry tenants outside Topcliffe, near Thirsk.
3. Northumberland was murdered by the rebels when his own retainers refused to defend him.
4. The rebellion lacked a clear leader or national coordination and remained a localised outburst of violence.
5. Henry VII sent a royal army to the region to restore order, and the uprising was swiftly crushed.
Conclusion and Henry VII’s Response:
Following the suppression of the rebellion, Henry VII decided not to enforce the collection of the tax in Yorkshire, recognising the depth of opposition and local hardship. However, he did ensure that the region was placed under tighter royal control. Though the rebellion was relatively small and quickly dealt with, it exposed the limits of royal authority in the more remote areas of the kingdom.
Social discontent and rebellions:
The Cornish Rebellion - Causes, events and conclusion.
Cause, Leadership, and Motives:
- The Cornish Rebellion of 1497 was triggered by Henry VII’s demand for extraordinary revenue to fund a military campaign against Scotland.
- Just as the Yorkshire Rebellion had been sparked by a similar need for funds for a foreign conflict, the Cornish felt the tax burden was unjust and unbearable, especially as they lived in an isolated and poor part of the country.
- While the Cornish rebels did not murder a high-profile political figure like the Earl of Northumberland, their rebellion posed a much greater threat to Henry VII’s stability due to several factors:
• The large numbers involved in the rebellion, estimated at around 15,000.
• The rebellion was exploited by Perkin Warbeck, a pretender to the throne, who used it to further his own cause.
• The rebels marched on London, which brought them dangerously close to the capital, where they were halted only at Blackheath.
Key Events:
1. The rebellion began in Cornwall, where locals felt the burden of the tax to fund the Scottish campaign was too heavy.
2. The rebels began accusing Henry VII’s advisors, particularly John Morton (Archbishop of Canterbury) and Reginald Bray, of cruelty and malice for enforcing the tax.
3. The rebellion was led by Thomas Flamank, a lawyer, and Michael Joseph, a blacksmith — two ordinary men from the working class who stoked the anger of the masses.
4. As the rebellion grew, the leaders attacked key figures, with some calling for the punishment of the king’s counsellors.
5. The rebels marched towards London, a direct challenge to Henry VII’s authority, but were halted at Blackheath, just outside the capital.
6. Lord Daubeney was recalled from the Scottish border to deal with the rebellion.
7. The rebellion was swiftly crushed by Daubeney and his forces, but the leaders, including Lord Audley, were executed.
Conclusion and Henry VII’s Response:
Despite the rebellion’s threat, Henry VII showed leniency towards the ordinary rebels, only executing the leaders and treating the majority of the rebels with mercy. However, the rebellion created significant concern for Henry, especially since it was able to march towards London without much resistance. It exposed weaknesses in the Crown’s systems for maintaining order in the countryside and raised questions about how effectively Henry’s authority was being exercised outside major urban centres. The rebellion also disrupted Henry’s defence plans, as Lord Daubeney had to be pulled from the Scottish border to deal with it. After the rebellion was suppressed, Henry took steps to ease tensions with Scotland and became more cautious about engaging in foreign conflicts. The rebellion also led to the realization that regional discontent could easily be exploited for political causes, particularly by foreign threats like Perkin Warbeck.
Additional Information (Polydore Vergil’s Account):
Historian Polydore Vergil gives an account of the rebellion in his History of England (1513). He describes how the Cornish, living in a poor, isolated region, complained loudly about the tax imposed to fund the Scottish campaign. They accused Henry’s counsellors of cruelty and called for their punishment. Two men from humble backgrounds, Thomas Flamank (a lawyer) and Michael Joseph (a blacksmith), led the rebellion, claiming the tax was an unjust oppression on the Cornish people for such a small military expedition. They blamed John Morton, Reginald Bray, and other royal advisors for the suffering.
Henry 7th Society Summary:
Socially, England remained broadly stable in this period, and this is mainly because the people at the bottom of the social scale remained reasonably well off, as they had been since the Black Death.
For most of Henry VII’s reign, most English people remained peaceable
most of the time, and the various pretenders and claimants were unable to attract much support.
The two rebellions of the reign, the Yorkshire Rebellion of 1489 and the Cornish Rebellion of 1497, were exceptional, and easily suppressed.
