II
The Tudor period was the time of monarchy,and saw the beginning of a new relationship with the nobility.In this period,the nature of the relationship between the Monarch and the Nobility had changed a lot in the country's political life.
The first change was that country now played a more important role in the life of the nobility life.During the Tudor period,national authority had been initially developed,and these developments offered the nobles a new prospect,which provided them more political and economic opportunities.It is unimaginable for their predecessors.Some of them were able to meet the needs of the countries and found new locations of power in the state.So much so,they could get access to great power that their predecessors never had,and also to the wealth that their predecessors could not possibly compare to.The Nobles had benefited from the country's development.‘They can no longer carry out private warfare,but they can fight for the king and are fighting for an enormous repay.They can benefit from other ways to services for the king,such as access to court or to take office,as landowners,they also can benefit more from the peace and stability provided by the powerful royal’according to Dewald's assessment.[40]
The second change was the development of the country's political system,which changed the basis of the power the nobility had built.In this case,the nobles had to give up traditional political activity and to abandon personal military violence,political ties between feudal lords and the clients,and the political privileges to dominate a region.This made it necessary to learn how to manage a new type of courtiers,officials and military officers.They wanted to exercise their power through the court and in the royal government,rather than just rule by their own strength and in the enclave from where the king and his officials had been excluded.‘They represented the king's authority,rather than from the land or title.’[41]
The third change was that the king had gradually widened the distance between himself and the nobles.During this period,the king no longer saw himself as the first noble or a noble in the nobility,and they gradually made themselves outrank all subjects,including the nobility.There was the formation of the English nation-state in the Tudor period,and as Chengdan argues‘the kings,who have been recognized as the highest military leader by nobles,appeared on behalf of the nation,playing the role of protection of“national interests”,exiting from the nobility,and became independent in the entire country on the autocratic monarchy.’[42]In this case,the nobles needed to be made aware of their inter-relationship with the Kings,then adjust their own mentality,and put themselves in a correct position.
Therefore,from the nobility's view,they also had to adjust themselves to the new and extraordinary changes of state power.It can be said that in Tudor times,the noble rebellions were reducing,and it was this adjustment and adaptation that helped to work out such an outstanding performance.
The earls’rebellion in the north in November 1569 was the largest noble rebellion of Tudor England,led by the 7th Earl of Northumberland Thomas Percy and the 9th Earl of Westmorland,Charles Neville.Their places in the region were in danger as a result of the loss of the king's grace.This was‘the last episode in 500 years of protest by the Highland Zone against the interference of London’.[43]Another more violent noble rebellion was that led by the Earl of Essex in 1601.The former is in a sense,the rebellion of the old nobles who were deprived of political rights by the Monarchy,while the latter was the rebellion of new nobles who were unable to inherit the privileges enjoyed by their predecessors.Compared with the earlier rebellions,these were no longer directed against the king,but mostly pointed to King's ministers.For example,the uprising in the north on October 1536 pointed a finger at the members of the council who came from inferior positions,especially Riche and Cromwell,and the target of the northern rebellion in 1569 was Lord Burghley.[44]
The eventual elimination of the nobility's traditional threat to the monarchy was arrributed to a variety of factors,such as economic,legal,and ideological reasons.
First of all,the Tudor Kings had committed themselves to binding and repressing the nobles to whom most of the rights belonged.The Tudor Kings repressed those nobles who dared to rebel ruthlessly.As Stone has claimed,‘The success of the Tudors in weaning the landed classes from their ancient habits of violence and subjecting them to the discipline of the law involved a social revolution of far-reaching consequences.’[45]Through such practices,the Tudor Kings reminded nobles continuously that they could only cooperate with the Monarchy,otherwise they would be repressed.
Secondly,the concept of loyalty in society had changed.With the collapse of estates and serfdom,nobles could no longer get forces to rebel by means of the reminding them of their feudal rights.Moreover,with the continued growing of national sentiment,the whole society regarded loyalty to their country as their national obligation.These changes had greatly weakened the power of the rebellious nobles.‘It was at this point that the old landed classes became aware of the need for a reorientation of their value system,if they were to survive and prosper.’[46]If they could not find a suitable position for their own power in the new system,they would most likely lose their power and influence in politics.
Thirdly,the emergence of a new means of struggle made violence become the last choice against the king.With the Parliament improved its position in political life,it had become the stage for nobles to fight in political struggles.Noble politicians became mature,and they realized that the country was the most important.They could not only show their dissatisfaction by individual rebellion,but had to change the general policy of the central government.They gradually abandoned violent rebellions,but sought to achieve their objectives by legitimate struggles in Parliament.They‘rarely considered the scope of activities or limited their goals.Their main interests were to use this framework to achieve their own purpose…to enlarge their power,prestige and wealth,and try to expand the noble factors and symbols in the social and political structure.’[47]
Fourthly,the lifestyle of the nobles had changed dramatically.With the development of history and society,the ways for nobles to express their emotions and energies had increased.Their political roles increased diversely.Parliamentarians,government officials,military officials,and court officials were open to them.In economic life,the nobles were no longer limited on the land,but mining,industry,transport,commerce and trade was now being offered to them.The nobility was no longer just spectators in cultural life,and they had become an active participant and mentors.The varied lives made the nature of the nobles change.They became courteous instead of warlike,and even their ways of thinking and acting had changed.
Speaking of the relationship between the monarchy and nobility,very few historians now insist that there was hostility between the two.The English historians‘in the wake of the McFarlane revision,have developed cogent representations of abiding co-operation between monarchy and nobility as the essential feature not only of their relationship but generally of the late medieval and early modern polity’.[48]In this view,the king and the nobility is not the sworn enemy of the game,but have the same interests.In fact,the majority of early modern political progress sought control and regulation by both sides.Along with the dialogue and cooperation between the king and the nobility went the struggles over the content and conditions for dialogue and cooperation,i.e.the struggles over what role the nobles played in the political system.
The most important reason for nobles to ensure lasting cooperation with the Monarchy was in the fundamental interests of both sides.Since the late Middle Ages,with the collapse of the feudal serfdom and estate,the state system entered into a long period of adjustment.During this period,political,legal and military powers were transferred to central government,and‘the power in the village weakened,while at the same time the country has achieved centralization.’[49]The new government might have combated some nobles.However,it was not hostile overall to the nobility,nor did it seek to destroy them.Instead,it sought to protect the overall interests of nobility.Some nobles might have lost power,but the whole nobility did not,and some even enlarged their power in the new system.During this period,although some nobles rebelled,they had never been a widely unified resistance,because the nobility and the monarchy were born from the same root.The fundamental interests had decided that it was not a fundamental contradiction.As Keyao explains,‘they had a stronger monarchy political cohesion.In order to keep their vested interests,they must rely on and support their political representative—the monarchy,it was generally the most basic political attitude.’[50]The monarchy was not to start a life-anddeath struggle to their privileges,because in the social status the privilege showed itself clearly.Only with those privileges who resisted its authority or claimed out of their ruling privilege were the ones that the monarchy was still fighting.
Although the English monarchy continued to strengthen in Tudor times,it was constrained by several factors,including the existence of traditional political groups which were dominated by the monarchy,as well as the laws and regulations which dominated everywhere.As the monarchy had not exercised absolute power,‘the struggle between the nobility and the State was not absolute.’[51]
For the nobles who chose to cooperate with the monarchy,there was also a very important factor,which helped the nobles get the benefits from the development of the monarchical state.The symbiotic relationship between the monarchy and nobility reflected that the king was the highest patron of the estate society.The king could give nobles titles,offices,land,pensions and many other gifts,because the king was the monarch who was richer than all his subjects,and was the only source of public authority and social honour.[52]