I

The policies of the Tudors towards the nobility consisted of three parts:a prudent policy of conferring nobles;a stiff penalty on nobles who launched a rebellion,or who threatened the monarchy;and a reliance on the nobles to control the kingdom.These policies reflected the relationship between monarchy and nobility,and revealed a large part of the Tudor monarchy's attitude towards the nobility.The main part of Tudor's noble policy was to confer new nobles so as to keep their existence and size at stable levels,thus making this policy a major indicative sign of the Tudor's attitude towards the nobility.

The Tudor dynasty needed to consolidate its power over the Kingdom after the establishment.A concomitant facet essential in this aim was the reorganization of the nobility along its own prescribed lines to ensure its domination.However,compared with earlier kings,and their policies vis-àvis the nobility over a century ago,the Tudor king's policies towards the nobility was more cautious.Henry VII conferred few nobles(only nine were credible),including the recovery of those who was deprived by their titles.^[1]During the reign of Henry VII,the reduction in the numbers of nobles outstripped growth.Numbers had reduced from fifty-five in 1485 to forty-two in 1509.^[2]During the reign of Henry VIII,the number of nobles reverted to about fifty-five in 1529.^[3]To stabilise society and to increase and maintain support,more nobles were conferred after 1529.Until the death of Henry VIII in 1547,the number of nobles was just fifty-one—just nine more than when he ascended to the throne.^[4]In the 1530s,the number of nobles increased following Henry VIII's reformation.Although Edward VI was more generous in conferring,he had not reigned for long.After Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1558,she continued to be very stringent on the issue of nobility.Of all the eighteen new nobles she conferred,recovered,awarded or approved,six recovered their original title,two were given to women who inherited the title by descent,three were awarded to the youngest son of nobles,two were approved for the descendant of prominent families,three were the relatives of the royal family,only two were actually new titles.^[5]Queen Elizabeth was very stingy on issue of conferring the nobles,and in her later years,it was getting more prominent.From 1573 to 1603,she approved of Lord Willoughby's succession of his mother's title,and raised Lord Howard to be an Earl.Only one was a new conferred title.^[6]The Tudor Kings are all very cautious and stringent about conferring titles,possibly motivated by the noble's lack of male heirs.In addition,since some were deprived of their titles,the number of nobles in Tudor times was largely stagnant.

Though Tudor Kings had a stringent policy on nobility,we cannot take this as evidence to say that the Tudor monarchy and nobility are irreconcilable.From 1485 to 1529,the numbers of nobles were reducing.However,it could be seen as a natural reaction to the generous policy of the York House,which had taken the power of nobles to a higher level,increased their influence in society,but resulted in social unrest and political instability.Therefore,this was a lesson for all the Tudor Kings.Since the first Tudor King,Henry VII,ascended to the throne after‘War of the Roses’,he intended to restrict the power and quantity of nobility.But he still fostered and raised the Jasper Tudor family and Stanley family.^[7]And Henry VIII also fostered a number of new nobles to replace those who lost their power through giving wealth.Henry VIII was most conservative when he was young,just conferring when it was necessary,while as an adult he had often conferred based on political motivations to solve the political and noble problems.His control on the nobility during his later reign showed that he was really cautious about conferring nobles.However,it was said that shortly before the death of Henry VIII,he was not dissatisfied with the number of nobles conferred during his reign,and this made him prepared to explore other options,such as conferring ten Barons and to raise six.^[8]As Miller has argued,‘By his readiness to increase its size he demonstrated his belief in its value.By refusing to make an excessive number of grants he preserved its status.’^[9]The fact that Elizabeth I did not want to confer the new nobles however did not mean to undermine the power and the numbers of the nobility,but sought to maintain the older nobles at a high status in society and social hierarchy.Based on his observation,Francis Naunton concluded that,‘a concurrence of old blood with fidelity[was]a mixture which ever sorted with the queen's nature.’^[10]‘In order to make the nobility the noblest in the social hierarchy,the Queen was strict,for apparently no reason,so as to avoid the oversize of nobility when she chose the new member of nobility each time.This made people inside or outside the nobility to feel they were so dignified,and become the supporters and defenders of hierarchy.’^[11]Therefore we can see the Tudor Kings did not intend to sit and watch the demise of nobility,but to build the nobility,which would not threaten but be useful for the kings.

The Tudor House was built on the ruins of‘Wars of the Roses’.These tragic struggles and frequent changes of Monarchy meant that the Tudor Kings could not help but to be mindful of these tragic circumstances.Therefore,the Tudor Kings were committed to the discipline,and the repression of the power held by local nobles to ensure the security of their domination.Punishment for rebellious nobles was relentless.Throughout the Tudor period,the nobles would be deprived of their title and property,and even killed in rebellions.During the reign of Henry VII and Henry VIII,some nobles were deprived of their titles and property while other nobles who were the former royal descents and qualified to inherit the throne were executed.Nine nobles in the reign of Henry VII^[12]and twelve nobles in the reign of Henry VIII were deprived of their titles.^[13]In the reign of Elizabeth I,six nobles were found guilty and had been deprived of their titles.^[14]Some penalties for the nobles were very severe.Henry VII permanently deprived three nobles of their titles.^[15]During the reign of Henry VIII,the Stafford family had been deprived of their title and property,and never retrieved their Duke and huge real estate.^[16]As Stone has argued,‘By occasional executions and irreversible attainders and by refraining from building up new landed families to replace those which died out,the Tudors succeeded in reducing the numbers of great territorial landlords.’^[17]Until 1620,a minority of families in the ruling classes in the late 15th century survived.The survival of the Howard family was the sole example,and this family had become very tame.From 1572 to 1623 when James I recovered the title of Richmond and Buckingham,there was no Duke in England.Although depriving their titles was a severe means to punish the nobles,very few noble families became extinct because they offended the kings.Of the nine nobles who were deprived by Henry VII,six resumed their titles later.The majority of those deprived by Henry VIII eventually had their titles restored.It should be emphasized that the Tudor Kings did not simply undertake suppression and attacks on local nobles,but applied the carrot and stick judiciously,praising them graciously.It is mainly embodied as a process of forgiveness for their betrayal—a system allowed,through marriage,to establish a new family.This granted a considerable degree of independent authority.In the Tudor period,the revival of the nobility was quite normal.It can be said that the king's forgiveness policy made nobles willing to receive the risk of punishment that could lead to their execution,or deprivation of their title.This could be seen from the fact that the noble betrayed frequently,and then re-emerged as large landowners and the nobility again and again.The Percy earls of Northumberland were one such example,losing their titles twice,in 1537 and 1569 respectively.All their property was requisitioned,but each time they re-emerged as a prominent family.^[18]The houses of Stafford,Fitzgerald and Courtenay deprived by Henry VIII also escaped from the king's attack later,and once again get a vast real estate and title of nobility with local dignitaries.^[19]Since the Tudor Kings had never doubted how important the nobility were,and never thought to abandon the support of the nobility,they emphasized the nobility's traditional role.As Miller has claimed,‘In a hierarchical society,the king needed the nobility as much as the nobility needed the king.But it was the nobility that he needed,not any individual nobleman.’^[20]Therefore,the Kings would not sit by and watch the decline of nobility,even though they mercilessly punished the rebellious nobles.

Referring to the policy of the restriction and repression of the Tudor kings,people usually take Henry VII as an example.The noble policy of Henry VII was more stringent.In his reign,there were nine nobles being deprived of titles,thirty-six nobles signed a guarantee and delivery of bonds,of whom five paid a large fine and three received summonses to obtain fines.^[21]However,it was not an invention by Henry VII.Depriving titles in late Lancaster and York Houses was very severe,and signing on the guarantees and collecting the guarantee fund were common ways of restricting nobles in 15th century life.This approach was a tradition over several centuries rather than something new or unusual.In historians’views,many of Henry VII's practices are illegal,but his acts are not as brutal as many kings previous to him.As Morgan has previously argued,‘it may also be stressed that the somewhat evil reputation of Henry VII which has come down to posterity owes more to contemporary and near-contemporary denunciation of his greed than to comments on the disciplinary aspects of his policy.’^[22]During this period,‘The level and flow of grants might become so far diminished in relation to expectations as to ferment impatience,low morale,and even active disloyalty among the Monarchy's servants and suitors.’^[23](https://www.daowen.com)

In the Tudor period,the team of bureaucrats and a standing army in England were not an efficient and professional body.In this case,the Kings were largely ruled by nobles,who maintained rural order,suppressed domestic rebellion and took to foreign wars with large numbers of troops provided by the nobles.‘In the absence of the permanent militia,the Monarchy ruled in part through its territorial magnates.’^[24]Now it has been proved that‘even if the first Tudor king did not absolutely eradicate the old nobles,but did employ them at the national office;the last Tudor king was still a clear view that the stability of the nobility was an essential part of her regime.’^[25]

Although Henry VII had taken various measures to restrict the nobility,he was still reliant on them for governing.Lacking an efficient and professional team of bureaucrats in England,the corruption and violence of many justices of the peace made them simply unable to maintain law and order.Its effect was seen much more deeply later even in the villages.In Buckinghamshire and Rutlandshire as an example,in the first decade of the 16th century,there was one gentry in only one-fifth of the villages,and by 1680 in more than two-thirds of the villages.^[26]In this case,the nobility was the only social group that could help the king maintain social order,and defend the country.As Lander has explained‘Even violence and disloyalty could not destroy the nobleman's essential role in society.’^[27]The Tudor Kings did really have doubts about the nobility who were owning private force and guarding the marches,and tried to replace nobility with the officials to rule the marches,but the complex situation and frequent wars made the officials unable to exercise their powers.In this case,the King had to continue relying on powerful nobles.Dike,Fitzgerald and Northumberland were examples of such nobles.^[28]Henry VII had tried to change the practice of appointing the nobles as the Governor of the marches,however,the complicated situation in marches,and the continued war forced him to restore the practice of appointing the nobles as the Governor of the marches.By 1530s,Henry VIII still had to rely on the northern nobles’forces to ensure peace.In the Tudor period,as Miller has explained,‘holders of high political office were usually given titles to increase the respect accorded to them and to their office,and some important offices were always given to old aristocratic families to secure their support and strengthen their loyalty.’^[29]Most of the high stewards appointed by Henry VIII were appointed as a Count or higher,such as great Chamberlain,Lord Chancellor and Chief Butler were wholly or mostly nobles.^[30]Elizabeth I was also traditional in her official appointments,appointing nobles to be key officers who sat around her throne.Local key positions,such as sheriff and chief justice officers had gradually become hereditary posts of the most prominent families.Henry VIII approved nobles to be local officers in order to control the chaos of the situation.Then Elizabeth I set the post of Lord Lieutenant a permanent position.During the reign of Henry VIII,the chief justice of the royal forests was almost completely dominated by the nobles,^[31]and a number of nobles were also present in Wales and the northern councils.^[32]

On military affairs,the Tudor monarchy still depended on the nobility.In the early days of the Tudor House,a series of coercive measures had been taken to weaken the nobility's military force.However,these measures were mostly taken during Henry VII's reign,and were destroyed quickly by the needs of military services within the nobility.No matter whether it was Henry VII,Henry VIII or Elizabeth I,since the Tudor‘kings have limited numbers of guards’,^[33]they all needed to rely on the nobility to offer armed forces for battles.It was dangerous for the nobles who,with a large military force in wartime,could become a law destroyer.However,this satisfied the kings during wartime.In a few Henry VIII's foreign wars,the English army had traditionally consisted of nobles and upper gentry's servants and tenants.As Anderson has argued‘Henry VIII”s army was so mixed,and formed here and there.The nobles’servants from Domestic and mercenaries from overseas are mixed together.’^[34]In 1523,one-third of Henry VIII's army was comprised of the nobles’force.The repression of the‘Pilgrimage of Grace’and Watt Uprising had been done by this type of army.Even in the late Tudor period,to a certain extent,the kings would also have to rely on the nobility in military activities.In the critical moment,Elizabeth I still had to get help from her nobles,and they were most capable people to help her since they could still control their tenants.

The Tudor House not only needed noble troops but also nobles to command the army.In several wars with the Scottish during the 16th century,nobles played an important role in the organisation of troops.Shrewsbury was appointed to be the commander in the war against the Scottish in 1522.^[35]The Duke of Norfolk was appointed to be the commander in the Scottish war in 1542.In the late Tudor period,the Earl of Leicester commanded English troops in the Netherlands.Lord Howard was the navy commander,and the Earl of Essex was in charge of the troops in Ireland.^[36]From Henry VIII to Elizabeth I,Tudor Kings had been committed to establish a permanent army,but it took a long time.In fact,‘the Tudor struggle to monopolize violence is far more long-drawn,far more complicated,and far less triumphant than is generally supposed.’^[37]Before 17th century,no great change could make the national army emerge,and the majority of the armed forces was still chosen and coordinated by the King.Dr.Goring has pointed out that in the early Tudor period,the military system,on the one hand was feudal and on the other hand was national.^[38]Although both of the factors were changing,the condition was still in existence during Elizabeth I's reign.Until England established a permanent army in the late 17th century,the Government started to set up the functions of offering armed forces instead of nobles.^[39]