Andrew Mitchell

Assess the significance of the Role of Individuals in bringing about changes to the power

of the monarchy, 1485-1588’

Monarchy described by D.Starkey is an institution ‘built of memory and inherited

traditions, of heirlooms, historic buildings, and old age rituals’1. Arguing it ‘is also about

ideas’, each individual, though with different ideologies, faced the same problems with

the nobility and Church needing to be controlled. The War of the Roses was a

bloodthirsty battle that limited outright power to any individual. The legacy that grew

from it helped Tudor individuals assert their power, and eventually resulted in them

outliving their usefulness. The question remains of how significantly these individuals

changed monarchical power between 1485 and 1588.

Monarchy is only powerful when controlled by powerful individuals. They are the key

to bringing real change to the institutional system. Henry VII is seen as the creator of a

century of Tudor reign, modernising the system using, in the words of T.A Morris

‘established methods in a distinctive and intensive way’2 producing new political and

financial institutions. Henry VIII’s minister Thomas Cromwell made key reforms, enabling

modern reorganization of government structures and the Privy Council. Both monarchs

believed in having a correct structure to assert power throughout; government should

liaise with the King. The continued weakening of the nobility undertaken by both Henry’s

ensured there was little threat, with Cromwell promoting the ‘gentry’ class at the

expense of the nobility. Arguably, Cardinal Wolsey ‘had made it possible at the peace of

the following year, to place his country on a level with France and Spain and the

Empire’3. Pollard’s view suggests he is exaggerating the power of England when the

nation was not at that ‘height’, this doesn’t increase monarchal power. Arguably then,

Henry giving power to Wolsey/Cromwell reduced his own in the long term, proving an

important role for the individual.

1 Starkey, David; Monarchy2 Morris, T.A; Tudor Government3 A.F.Pollard; Henry VIII, p.61

1

Andrew Mitchell

Loach suggests Somerset, was 'more interested in his military campaigns in Scotland

than…in social policies meant to alleviate the lot of the poor’4. It’s clear Somerset looked

towards national sovereignty to promote monarchical power; it was essential in the

Tudor revolution. However, arguably his ‘social policies’ continued to develop the Privy

Council and he used proclamations to continue weakening any rivals. Nonetheless, Loach

hints at the reason for Edward’s displeasure. Somerset’s near-autocratic rule by use of

proclamations reduced the power of monarchy, clearly proving that, in this case, the

individual was very important. Edwards other Minister on the other hand

Northumberland, is argued by H.Hoak as a ‘remarkably able governor’5, as he was able

to hold Edwards minority government together. Loades agrees with Hoak arguing the

nation ‘survive[d] a period of acute financial and social stress which could have inflicted

much greater danger than it did’6. Therefore Northumberland increased monarchal

power through re-structuring government issues, the individual is once again significant.

William Cecil, incredibly influential during Elizabeth’s reign, was a relative success

because he did exactly what he was told effectively acting as Elizabeth’s Assistant. Able

to control political factions, protecting the queen and system, Cecil increased the

perceived power of monarchy through effective propaganda ensuring acceptance of

policy by the public. He took away any threat from Mary, Queen of Scots through

dispatching her death warrant, yet arguably he challenged her power being so close to

her and perhaps the nobility disliked him for having lessor roots, in the end, Elizabeth

was simply weakening the nobility further by giving more power to the gentry. Each

individual had their own ‘ideas’, with many going further than or failing to deliver the

demands of the monarch, proving the importance of the individual.

As the result of individual’s ideologies, religion underwent change, yet this was a

dangerous subject; the wrong ideas could cause undesirable revolts. Often forgotten,

Henry VII had an important impact in establishing Praemunire; he enabled the prohibition

of the ‘exercise of papal authority on points prejudicial to the rights and interests of the

4 Loach, J; A Mid Tudor Crisis?5 D.Hoak, “Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland- Politics and Political control 1549-53”6 J.Loach, A Mid Tudor Crisis?

2

Andrew Mitchell

king’7. The church didn’t have a separate legal system over state, so Henry knew that by

attacking church matters, he would increase influence and power. D.Rogerson argues

that for Henry ‘it must have felt like a thorn in his side, especially when his position was

so tenuous’8. I believe this as truthful; there was a smooth relationship between himself

and the pope meaning that with religion he wasn’t at risk. Arguably, Henry’s jurisdiction

over church matters was the forerunner to his son’s. By becoming head of the Church of

England, Henry VIII undoubtedly increased monarchical power and without the dislike for

papal jurisdiction from his father, Henry’s religious policy could’ve been very different.

By becoming Supreme Head of the Church, he was able to decrease Church power

through the Dissolution of the monasteries and sell church land to support the economy,

leading to a more powerful monarchy that could now dictate religion to the masses.

Edward began his reign with the same ideological impacts on Religion, continuing

Henry’s policy. D Loades argues it ‘was not a natural growth, it was highly artificial and

imposed by authority’9 with it ‘gained by the gradual winning over of the inert mass of

men to spiritual acceptance by the very gradual’10. These explain the lack of opposition

to the policy; they were easy to win over. Yet on the other hand I would argue that this

authority was imposed by Somerset, not Edward. He was the one who persuaded

Parliament to break the defenses of traditional religion; it was down to the individual,

who had a clear impact on the increase of power. Cranmer and Edward together created

the ‘First Book of Common Prayer’, which Edward took credit for, proving the king’s

power and further increasing that of the monarchy. However, Edward was still a child,

and although taking credit for the actions, the influence of an individual-Thomas

Cranmer- that affected the power of Religion. This was turned around again by Mary in

1554 when she returned England to Catholicism. She ordered “all her subjects [to] follow

suit’11, possibly increasing power as she had the final say. Yet she was no longer head of

the church and a significant amount of power was returned to the pope. Conversely, the

outward conformity of Elizabeth’s subjects allowed her to increase power by establishing

7 Guy, John; Tudor England8 Rogerson, David; The Early Tudors, England 1485-15889 Loades, D; The Mid-Tudor Crisis, 1545-1562, 1992, p.17810 W.K. Jordan, Edward VI: The Threshold of Power – the Dominance of the Duke of Northumberland, 1970, p.24111 Mary’s Proclamation on Religion; 16th August 1553

3

Andrew Mitchell

the Anglican Church, easing pressures and almost finding the balance between the two

faiths. To conclude, this balance was the most unstable part of the dynasty, gradually

being changed from when it was established by Henry VII.

Finance was important for Henry VII. Knowing the land was key, the Act of

Resumption in 1486 enabled this crown land which had been lost to be recovered, along

with changes to the ways land was managed, maximizing revenue. Exploiting his

position, he commissioned many palaces to strengthen his image. R.L.Storey confirms

this, arguing ‘the revenue of the crown had been greatly augmented, enabling the king

to maintain his estate with splendor and free his government of the crippling dangers of

poverty’12. He continued the weakening of nobility, making them repay debts. Yet Elton

counter-argues Storey’s point; ‘it may be doubted whether it really merits all the

admiration which it has excited. After all, it took only two years of by no means

extravagant war in the next reign to wipe it out’13. Henry VIII’s total per annum was

merely £113,000 compared to the Holy Roman Emperor’s £1,100,000, proving why

finance was so important; England needed to make an impact. To improve, he increased

the power of the monarchy only slightly by bringing it more into line with European

standards. As Elton suggests, Henry spent his father’s money on foreign wars relatively

quickly. Arguably the role of individual is key here, but despite the Dissolution of the

monasteries allowing income to be higher than ever for the crown lands, we can argue

that Henry diminished some power from the monarchy in relation to where it stood in the

world, behind that of France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Edwards reign was a mix of success and failure in terms of power with finance. Being

young, Lord Somerset and later the Duke of Northumberland acted as ‘Lord Protector’s’

controlling policy. Continuing the trend’s set by Henry VIII, large sums of money were

spent by Somerset on the continuing battles with France, especially with that of

Scotland. He believed in national pride and respect for the monarchy itself, so arguably

Somerset increased power by justifying a sense of national pride amongst the people.

Spending £580,393 on the Scottish war, debasement of the coinage was needed and

12 Storey, R.R; The Reign of Henry VII, 1968, p.11513 Elton, G.R; England Under the Tudors, 2nd Edition, 1974, p.54

4

Andrew Mitchell

what didn’t help were increasing population figures, made worse by increasing inflation.

Northumberland however, found a solution to the mess Somerset had left the economy

in, appearing ‘to have been one of the most remarkably able governors of any European

state during the sixteenth century’14. I believe Hoak’s argument to be correct as the

Duke’s main target was to stabilize the economy. Debasement was ended, he introduced

a huge reduction in expenditure, and the selling of Crown Land enabled debts to

decrease from £300,000 in 1550 to £180,000 in 1553. Arguably though, despite great

financial success, he decreased the long-term power of the monarchy by reducing

expenditure, leading to the Government’s financial position being compromised. In

conclusion, the role of individuals is important because of different ideologies, money

was a powerful object, and the changes made throughout not only increased the power

of monarchy, but also weakened that of the nobility.

Religious and policy changes were dangerous as they could lead to rebellion. The

1539 Pilgrimage of Grace left many discontented with not only Henry, but his ministers

too. Elton argued it represented ‘the effort of a defeated court faction to create a power

base in the country for the purpose of achieving a political victory at court’15. However,

he looks only at evidence from lords Darcy and Hussey, yet does not justify the key roles

that the lower orders played. Arguably there was a decrease in power here because the

people were making demands against their supreme leader, yet Henry fought back. It

proved that the people could rise up; yet also proved the continuity of Henry’s

backlashes on the nobility. Henry VII established these weakening’s, his son wanted to

go further and although parties of nobles and commoners were involved, Henry’s

position was to be cemented in place, thereby increasing the power of the monarchy

through suppression of the nobility.

Similarly the 1569 Northern Rebellion during Elizabeth’s reign, consisted of

resentment for politics and succession. Lasting just over a month, it fell apart after Cecil

ordered 10,000 men to meet the rebel army, who panicked, escaping to the Scottish

border. As Elizabeth relied on Cecil for protection, he used this power, deteringh political

14 Hoak, D; ‘Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland: Politics and Political Control, 1549-53’15 Elton, G.R; ‘Politics and the Pilgrimage of Grace’

5

Andrew Mitchell

enemies who led the uprising, increasing the power of the monarchy further. The Lady

Jane Grey Crisis and Wyatt Rebellion are key events revolving around the dislike for

possible successors. Throughout both, the opposing forces acted in the nation’s

interests, with Northumberland trying to prevent a return to Catholicism and Mary. The

Wyatt rebellion was against Mary’s links with the Spanish and was by far the closest

monarchy had come to being overthrown in history. ‘Fewer than 100 executions took

place and most were pardoned.’16 Turvey’s point demonstrates that Mary had a fear, and

although this would have decreased power, arguably her reaction was King like, proving

the weaknesses of the nobility that both Henry’s built on, promoting the gentry instead

of them. We mustn’t forget that the nobility finalised parliament policies, so they needed

to be relied on. It wasn’t the role of individual, but circumstance leading to the failure of

Northumberland in the Lady Jane Grey Crisis. He made too many mistakes, failing to

arrest Mary and underestimating support for her. Though it’s clear that the weakening of

nobility in the earlier reigns ensured that later monarchs didn’t necessarily increase

power themselves, it’d already been done for them.

To conclude, the power of the Tudors could have been very different if it had not

been individuals’ roles. They followed traditional roles, most notably by repressing the

nobility, but just enough to weaken them. Each individual had their own ideology proving

the significant ups and downs in changes to power throughout the century and for this

reason the monarchy was at its strongest when key individuals were in positions of

power, but in the end even they sometimes outlived their usefulness for the powerful

monarchs they worked for.

Sources Issue Comments Teachers Comments

Initial

16 Turvey, Roger; Change and Protest 1536-88: Mid-Tudor Crises?6

Andrew Mitchell

MonarchyDavid Starkey(Overview of Dynasty)

Overview Works itself through each reign, following topics of course closely. Good to understand the dynasty.

Tudor GovernmentT.A Morris

Henry VII Creates understanding of Henry’s plans and his setting up of government.

The Reign of Henry VII, 1968R.L Storey

Confirming and backs up knowledge of successful financial ventures.

Tudor EnglandJohn Guy

Raises argument that Henry began the papal revolution instead of his son.

The Early Tudors, England 1485-1588David Rogerson(Overview of Dynasty)

Raises argument of Henry being possibly being paranoid over rivals.

Elizabeth/Cecil Easy to understand read on religion and finance with relevant source material.

Henry VIIIA.F Pollard Henry VIII and

Wolsey/Cromwell

Raises argument that Henry decreased power by giving it to ministers.

7

Andrew Mitchell

England Under the TudorsG.R Elton

Argues that Henry VII’s finance was not that good, as henry VIII spent it all quickly.

Politics and the pilgrimage of GraceG.R Elton

Explanation for the pilgrimage of death, not too reliable however, does not look at all evidence.

A Mid Tudor CrisisJ. Loach(Overview of Dynasty)

Edward/Somerset/Northumberland

Explains one side of Somerset, along with other interpretations, useful for understanding him.

The Mid – Tudor CrisisDavid Loades

Argues the huge role the individual played in the religious change. Key to coming to a solid conclusion.

Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland

Interpretations of Northumberland that give a clean character, and back up evidence.

Edward VI: The Threshold of PowerW.K Jordan

Good overview of Edwards reign, interesting insights into religion in particular.

Proclamation on Religion Mary

Primary source, from her words backs up what her ideology was.

Change and Protest 1536-88: Mid-Tudor Crises?Roger Turvey(Overview of Dynasty)

Good overview of rebellion during Mary’s reign, insights into leniency of her at this stage.

8

Andrew Mitchell

Overall this book runs through each section of the course with relevant sources in good detail.

Elizabeth/Cecil Good overview of The Lady Jane grey crisis backed up by relevant source material.

Bibliography

Primary 1. Mary’s proclamation on Religion, 16th August 1553

Secondary 1. Elton, G.R, “England under the Tudors, 2nd Edition”2. Elton, G.R, “Politics and the Pilgrimage of Grace”3. Guy, John “Tudor England” 4. Hoak, D “Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland- Politics and Political control

1549-53” 5. Jordan, W.K, “Edward VI: The Threshold of Power- the Dominance of the Duke of

Northumberland” Starkey, David “Monarchy”6. Loach, Jennifer “A Mid-Tudor Crisis?”7. Loades, David, “The Mid-Tudor Crisis, 1542-1562”8. Morris, T.A, “Tudor Government” 9. Pollard, A.F, “Henry VIII” 10. Rogerson, David & Ellsmore, Samantha, “The Early Tudors, England1485-1558”11. Storey, R.R, “The Reign of Henry VII”12. Turvey, Roger & Heard, Nigel, “Change and Protest 1536-88: Mid Tudor Crisis?”

9

Andrew Mitchell

10