Henry VII Government - Finances Flashcards
What was Henrys attitude towards finances and revenue?
H acutely aware of importance of good financial base and availability of huge sums of revenue together w financial stability was essential and hugely beneficial if he ever had to raise an army to defeat enemies and ensure his dynastic and national security. He did not feel secure unless he was rich and prosperous.
What were are the Types of ordinary revenue and extraordinary revenue available to Henry?
Ordinary = Crown lands, feudal dues/obligations, Bonds and recognisances, profits of justice
Extra ordinary=Parliamentary grants, Loans, French pension, Clerical taxes and Feudal aid.
Give 1st key point /evidence to agree that Henry succeeded in increasing Royal income
1) Main earner was in Royal Estates. H didn’t give many titles or lands away to his supporters or relatives, as result much more property was kept in kings personal estates + revenue gained from these holdings went toward Henry royal finances.
Huge benefit which arose as result of increased lands held by monarch using efficient management meant annual income of crown lands increased from £29,000 on death of R3 to £42,000 by 1509. Showing Royal income increased greatly during H reign.
Give 2nd key point to agree Henry succeeded in increasing royal income.
2) Acts of Attainder meant H gained more lands into his own assets, thus increasing earning for running the kingdom.
Through using Escheats instead of lands of deceased nobles being passed onto other Noble families the H absorbed them for himself, again increasing land and revenue for royal finances.
Passed Act of Resumption in 1485 which recovered all crown properties previously given away since 1455 but didn’t take all lands to keep nobility on side.
Henry attitude towards gaining and receiving land meant size of Royal Estates increased by 45% by end of reign in 1509.
Give 3rd key point to agree Henry succeeded in increasing royal income.
3) Henry took advantage of Catholic Church using Clerical Taxes and could exploit and control it to help provide crown with substantial finances raised through taxations, fines and loans. Where Church should supply money to the king in any emergencies, this was used in 1489 toward the French war which supplied Henry with £25,000. The Treaty of Estaples introduced the French Pension whereby sum of £500 was paid annually to Henry in exchange for him to leave French Land which equated to around £159,000 overall!
Key reasons to disagree that henry succeeded/ should be praised for increasing Royal income.
1) Some of H financial policies were extremely exploitative. Medieval feudalism placed monarch in position of power to own all lands in the realm and as overlord king could demand payments whenever changes took place in landowning arrangements. This paved way for exploitation of his nobles. He did this many occasions. One system was Wardship where Henry could claim warship of heir to estates and demand huge payments to allow the transfer of ownership of the lands to its rightful owner. This was just another way of extracting money out of his country’s nobility, despite producing large finances he used these to great extent to exhort money from his people.
Other reasons to disagree that henry succeeded/ should be praised for increasing Royal income.
2) Extraordinary revenue meant Henry could gain more money for royal finances generally only through a parliamentary grant which effectively authorised a direct tax from his subjects. This usually came in form of property of income tax and was extremely unpopular. It is suggested the political backlash H received due to his strategies was bad and often only increased revenue by the exploitation of his own people.
Much energy was then spent on improving henry’s revenues, but there was political price to be paid. The main victims of henry’s financial policies were the nations landowners, precisely the people henry would need the support of if his throne was threatened - yet henry treated them in a way which may have very well made them threaten the crown + whenever his predesessorsutilised this methods it ended disastrously + with challenges to authority - thus henry’s policies were quite dangerous ones.
Did Henry limit the size of the nobility?
Yes he did
- Henry limited the nobility by limiting the amount of new lords he created( Henry created only 3 new earls) , Lord Stanley, Philibert + Sir Edward Courtenay and did not even raise Sir Willian Stanley to peerage.
- The Nobility shrank from around 62 in 1485 to 42 by 1509.
However Henry rewarded his loyal noble supporters;
Lord Stanley was created Earl of Derby , Jaspar Tudor created Duke pf Bedford, Thomas Howard the Earl of Surrey and some followers given order of the garter.
Were Over- mighty magnates a serious threat to Henry?
Over mighty magnates did not pose a serious threat as they did during the wars of the roses
- Henry was lucky he had no close male relatives and was very cautious in creating new titles and giving away gained land.
- Henry controlled marriages of Nobles to avoid power blocks (ie when Katherine Woodville married without royal licence she was fined£2000)
- He carefully controlled Nobility ie when Duke of Buckingham wasn’t allowed possession of his property until 1498 and even fined his step brother Bishop stalely £245,000 for illegally retaining.
- Henry used attainers to punish/threaten the nobility.
What financial mehtods did Henry use to control the Nobility?
- He manipulated existing system of bonds - sums ranged from £400-£10,000.
- Attainders + feudal dues to increase funds and authority
- 2 Laws were passed against illegal retaining in 1487 + 1504 however he relied on nobles armies in emergencies. Henry tightened laws and enforcement and created a licence for legal retaining. He would even indict close friends for illegal retaining such as Derby, Oxford and his own mother.
What is the Revisionist view of Henrys attitude toward Finances?
The original view that Henry was a miser king who didn’t spend lavishly an completely transformed royal finances leaving a vats money to his son as changed.
- Judgements on henrys wealth were vastly overestimated and the means in which he actually accrued his wealth such as bonds and forced loans created more backlash , unpopularity and resentment.
