Lotherington says, ‘No king could rule without the co-operation of the nobility, which was largely responsible for conducting the king’s business in the provinces’ and Pendrill supports this when he says that Henry VII’s prime aim was to restore a partnership in government, shifting the balance in his favour after the disruption of the Wars of the Roses. Policies to achieve this combined a mix of the ‘carrot and stick’ technique. The ‘stick’ approach combined military and financial restraints and a reduction in central and local power. Whereas the ‘carrot,’ approach saw Henry develop a reward system for service and encouraging loyalty from his peers. However the question remains, how did Henry do when meeting the nobles. Are we to believe Pendrill who claims, ‘Henry’s relationship with his nobility was, ultimately a failure.’ Or are we to follow Guy’s line who claims, ‘by means of bonds, Henry VII in effect disabled his nobility.’ Henry’s first intention and his belief that this was the key to partnership was to reduce the military power of the nobles. A large band of retainers could provide nobles with their own pseudo, army or gang and if they were disloyal, this band could present a threat towards Henry. However, he also sometimes needed these private armies to support him in times of danger so he ideally wished to reduce them or make sure the nobles were not using them in a potentially military way. Literally, Henry limited retaining. One extreme case when Henry was visiting one of his most loyal supporters the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, gives an account on how Henry, when realising that Oxford had too many retainers on display to impress him but Henry said ‘by my faith my lord I thank you for your good cheer but I cannot endure having the law broken before my eyes. My attorney must speak with you.’ And it is part of the report that the earl was fined no less than 15,000 marks. This
Lotherington says, ‘No king could rule without the co-operation of the nobility, which was largely responsible for conducting the king’s business in the provinces’ and Pendrill supports this when he says that Henry VII’s prime aim was to restore a partnership in government, shifting the balance in his favour after the disruption of the Wars of the Roses. Policies to achieve this combined a mix of the ‘carrot and stick’ technique. The ‘stick’ approach combined military and financial restraints and a reduction in central and local power. Whereas the ‘carrot,’ approach saw Henry develop a reward system for service and encouraging loyalty from his peers. However the question remains, how did Henry do when meeting the nobles. Are we to believe Pendrill who claims, ‘Henry’s relationship with his nobility was, ultimately a failure.’ Or are we to follow Guy’s line who claims, ‘by means of bonds, Henry VII in effect disabled his nobility.’ Henry’s first intention and his belief that this was the key to partnership was to reduce the military power of the nobles. A large band of retainers could provide nobles with their own pseudo, army or gang and if they were disloyal, this band could present a threat towards Henry. However, he also sometimes needed these private armies to support him in times of danger so he ideally wished to reduce them or make sure the nobles were not using them in a potentially military way. Literally, Henry limited retaining. One extreme case when Henry was visiting one of his most loyal supporters the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, gives an account on how Henry, when realising that Oxford had too many retainers on display to impress him but Henry said ‘by my faith my lord I thank you for your good cheer but I cannot endure having the law broken before my eyes. My attorney must speak with you.’ And it is part of the report that the earl was fined no less than 15,000 marks. This