Untitled Flashcards Set

Elites in the Reign of Henry VIII

The reign of Henry VII marked a significant evolution in English society, where remnants of the feudal system coexisted with the emergence of a professional and commercial bourgeoisie. Despite this growth, traditional nobles, referred to as peers, alongside the greater gentry, continued to constitute the social elite, holding substantial political and economic influence over the governance and administration of the kingdom.

The Nobility

During the reign of Henry VIII, the size of the peerage experienced an increase; however, by the end of the reign, only nine additional peers had been created compared to the start. This creation of new peers was largely balanced by ‘natural wastage’ (deaths and hereditary transfers) and the number of attainders—loss of titles due to treason or disloyalty. Many new peers achieved their status through loyal service to the crown as courtiers or soldiers. Notable examples include Edward Seymour, who became the Earl of Hertford due to familial ties to the king.

At the outset of Henry VIII’s reign, England had only one duke, Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who fell out of favor with the crown and was executed for treason in 1521 on vague charges. Henry VIII promoted only two non-royal dukes—Norfolk and Suffolk—through actions that reflected their loyalty and proximity to royal authority. While Norfolk was restored to a title previously held by his father, Suffolk's promotion stemmed from a close personal relationship with Henry, leading to criticism from contemporary figures, including Erasmus.

The king strategically assigned property to nobles to reinforce royal authority in various regions, as exemplified when Suffolk was given land in Lincolnshire post-rebellion in 1536. Similarly, John, Baron Russell, was elevated to the peerage and granted lands in Devon following the execution of the Marquess of Exeter, reinforcing monarchial control over the southern territories. Nobles were expected to maintain large households and demonstrate hospitality, which, if done excessively, could evoke royal suspicion—as seen in Buckingham’s case. Nonetheless, the noble households were pivotal for sustaining local influence and for raising armies. For instance, the Earl of Shrewsbury raised over 4000 men for the French invasion in 1513.

Despite the vestiges of bastard feudalism, where nobles could maintain their own retinues, the growing dependency of the nobility on the crown resulted in diminished autonomy. This shift is poignantly illustrated by the fate of Thomas Fiennes, Baron Dacre of the South, who was executed for murder in 1541, marking a departure from the leniency earlier afforded to nobles in the Tudor period.

The Gentry

Historian John Guy approximated the number of gentry families to be around 5000 in England by 1540, with specific social distinctions evident within gentry status. For instance, those conferred with a knighthood were recognized for royal favor, correlated with an income reflective of that status. Susan Brigden noted around 200 knightly families in 1524. An esquire, entitled to bear a coat of arms, was a designation confirmed by royal heralds—a system that by 1530 had placed stricter requirements on land and income for status recognition.

The term ‘gentleman’ lacked a precise legal definition, with many acquiring gentility through wealth amassed from office or business ventures. The number of gentry increased notably during Henry VIII’s reign, highlighted by a rise in the justices of the peace (JPs), who facilitated local governance. The growing gentry class was increasingly motivated to secure legal training for their heirs, aiming for roles in local administration which were increasingly occupied by laymen rather than clergymen.

Commoners

In contrast to the elite, commoners experienced little significant change in their standard of living during the early half of Henry VIII’s reign. The inflationary pressures contributed to a decline in real incomes, exacerbating discontent among the common populace, particularly evident in the backlash against the imposition of the Amicable Grant in 1525. Overall, the social structure remained relatively stable, with the majority of the population possessing minimal assets and facing limited employment prospects. The government maintained a cautious approach towards the commoners, as sporadic civil unrest remained a concern, although substantial rebellions were rare. Such disorder was viewed as a threat to the established social order and stability