1485 - Henry VII's new Tudor Dynasty

Many will recall learning at school that the Battle of Bosworth Field marked a clean break with the past, settling the royal succession once and for all, putting England on a new footing, with a new direction. That 1485 was a watershed between the medieval era and the start of modern times. The new king, Henry VII, was portrayed as wise, fair minded and level headed, uniting warring factions. In the spirit of a rather simplistic puritanical 1950s’ culture, he was lauded for thrift, sound taxation, and replenishing the near bankrupt Treasury.

Apart from the last point, little of this was true. In fact challenges to Henry’s rule continued throughout his reign, and the questionable legitimacy of the Tudor succession was, even years later, a constant source of worry to his son Henry VIII. The regime’s propagandists did a good job of pushing their narrative, and much of the spin is still accepted today. But in fact we should see this reign as typifying the cynical use of authoritarian power, with divide and rule, Star Chamber and particularly in the final years, under the cover of refilling the country’s coffers, the cruel, corrupt practices of a gangster state.

Young Henry by a French artist        

Usurper

First, legitimacy and the problem of being labelled a usurper. In fact around half the 40 or so English monarchs since 1066 (and a good few before) had their right to the throne disputed. Some took the crown by conquest and/or battle, some owed it to family quarrels, or to the next in line being too young. Some were seen as the answer to religious arguments, while others simply killed the incumbent. It was a risky business being and getting to be, king - uneasy is the head that wears the crown. Six monarchs were indeed killed during this period. The fond notion that royal succession is a suitably clear, peaceful and uncontested way of choosing a head of state is another obvious myth of English history.

Henry’s claim to the throne was tenuous. It derived from a woman, his mother, Margaret Beaufort, and thus by illegitimate descent from John of Gaunt and his mistress Katherine Swynford. He tried to make something of his hereditary link to the Welsh aristocracy but this was also weak. But if Henry was a usurper, he was only replacing another usurper, and was challenged by a few more. He was virtually ‘last man standing’ after the Yorkist-Lancastrian dynastic civil war.

Margaret Beaufort, National Portrait Gallery 

Henry was lucky in several ways. As the Yorkist Edward IV regained the throne in 1471, Henry, having been brought up in England, fled with his uncle Jasper and others to Brittany. Nearly sent back to Edward IV in the 1470s, chance saved him. By 1484 his mother, by then married to the powerful Lord Stanley, was secretly aiding him. He had support from the Woodville family of Edward IV’s widow, Elizabeth, after the new king, Richard III, murdered Earl Rivers and almost certainly Elizabeth’s children, the ‘Princes in the Tower’. Those joining Henry in Brittany were mainly disaffected Yorkists, appalled at the attitude and behaviour of Richard III in England.

Elizabeth’s brother, Edward Woodville, was outraged at what was widely rumoured to be Richard’s murder of his two nephews. Seizing two ships in Southampton Water, he delivered these, plus £10,000 in cash, 15% of annual state revenues, to the exiled Henry in Brittany. With momentum building, Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter and heir of Edward IV. And he finally won the firm backing of the young new French king, Charles, and his regency.

Bosworth Field and after

Henry’s army at Bosworth was small, about 5000, with a few French, Scots and Welsh soldiers. But it defeated Richard’s forces as the king suicidally charged into the fray and the Northumberland and Stanley contingents switched sides or left the field. After the battle, Henry backdated his reign to the previous day, and also had Edward, the 10 year old Earl of Warwick (and a potential rival), put in the Tower. Lucky then, but also a sound if cynical political strategist.

He wed Elizabeth in 1486, with a new iconic symbol of the combined Lancaster and York roses, the Tudor rose, created by his spinners. It was used to show the unity of his reign. Yet this itself was threatened by several challenges, first in 1486 on a small scale by the Staffords, followed by a boy, Lambert Simnel, whose claim was backed by some English Yorkists. Yet the most serious threat was from Perkin Warbeck, a young Fleming claiming to be Richard, younger of the ‘Princes in the Tower’. With support from Edward IV’s sister Margaret of Burgundy, the rebels made a serious attempt to invade Ireland, and while they were at it persuaded Scotland’s James IV to invade England. The Warbeck rebellion ended in 1497 with a failed Cornish landing.

State extortion

Historians have often praised Henry for his acumen with money. He sidelined Parliament which only sat once in the last 12 years of his reign. Instead he raised revenue from Royal Estates, mainly using feudal methods like escheats (estates with no heir reverting to the crown) and ‘livery payments’ on wardships. By these and other means he increased revenues by nearly half. He also gained much from illicit trading in alum, vital in the cloth industry, and supposedly an accepted Vatican monopoly. And he managed to extort £5000 a year from the French, simply for not attacking them.

Cardinal John Morton

Henry was hardly frugal with his own family, or in bribing European rulers to support him. But he was greedy. Chancellor Archbishop Morton’s Catch 22 tax policy with nobles -‘Morton’s Fork’- meant that if you spent little you must be hiding wealth, but if you spent a lot you could afford to pay more. Many important cases, including tax disputes, were heard by Star Chamber, the so called Prerogative Court - authoritarian justice. Henry used it to divide and rule noble families and shackle presumed opponents, who were forced to sign huge bonds repayable over many years to the Crown. 

Posthumous Henry VII statue from his death mask  

When his son and heir Arthur died in 1502, followed by his wife Elizabeth in 1503, grief seemed to drive him into a period of prolonged depression. His paranoia became even more intense and he encouraged his tax officials to go after everyone thought to have wealth, including people who had been loyal to him over many years, some of whom had fought with him at Bosworth. Minor technical infringements were punished with enormous fines or bonds which could never be repaid by victims or their successors.

The widespread use of what were termed recognizances, or suspended fines, was a threat waved at everyone and often used. It was like being on permanent bail - if triggered it would amount to certain ruin for the families involved. In 1506 his Stanley step-family, charged with minor infringements, was fined an incredible £145,000, saddling their descendants with huge debts.

This pattern was repeated many times over five years with the Church and leading merchants. The key officials involved in this extortion business were Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley, the latter recording an amazing £220,000 in just one of several account books. Contemporary commentator Vergil wrote ‘through the agency of these two men, the most savage harshness was made complete’.

Henry VII with Empson and Dudley

In the 1950s lauded historian Geoffrey Elton had the honesty to change his earlier benevolent view of this reign. The systematic abuse of power, worst in 300 years recorded for posterity, was a permanent stain on Henry. He died in April 1509, when Empson and Dudley were immediately seized and executed. But in truth they were just the fall guys - agents of a king who had obsessively counted it all down to the nearest halfpenny.