Post by Mr Modica on Dec 18, 2013 20:53:47 GMT
Examine the extent to which the Cornish Rebellion of 1497 was a threat to the authority of Henry VII.
Introduction
Set out line of argument – rebellion was a challenge to Henry’s authority and for the period of rebellion itself it stopped him from doing what he wanted. Just because it was a challenge to his authority does not necessarily mean it was a threat, i.e. something capable of removing his authority. Were there were other events that also challenged/threatened his authority to great or lesser degrees: Lambert Simnel, the Yorkshire and Perkin Warbeck.
Define ‘authority’.
How did the rebellion challenge Henry’s authority?
• Law and order: Movement of a large number of people not a social acceptable activity; The rebels murder a subsidy collector, i.e. the King’s representative However the march itself is relatively peaceful.
• Finance: Henry required money (subsidy and 2 fifteenths and tenths) for war with Scotland to suppress Warbeck and respond to a Scottish raid.
Money had been agreed by Parliament. Flamack argues King is acting beyond his authority with the subsidy.
• Councilors: The rebels themselves didn’t directly challenge Henry’s authority, aiming their complaints at “evil councilors” namely Morton and Bray.
• The battles: The battles and Guildford and Blackheath are a clear challenge to Henry’s authority. They are easily put down (15,000 rebels v 25,000 royalists).
• Follow-up: Following the rebellion Henry wanted to have Flamack and Joseph executed in Cornwall for “more terror”, but doesn’t as it is thought this will stir up the
rebels again. Lord Daubeney halts his pursuit of the rebels at the Cornish border for fear of furthering the rebellion.
All these things challenge Henry’s authority but do not in and of themselves threaten his authority. Where there is a threat to his authority is in the rebellion’s consequences.
Henry is unable to pursue the foreign policy he wants, it is this that threatens him as if Warbeck was successful he may no longer be king.
How much of a threat was the Cornish Rebellion when compared to other threats?
Lambert Simnel had perhaps represented the greatest threat to Henry’s authority: he had been crowned king in Ireland, had received international recognition and had forced Henry to battle, East Stoke 1487, which was a hard fought engagement. 1487 could easily have been a repetition of 1485.
Yorkshire Rebellion, like the Cornish one, challenged Henry’s financial authority. Was a serious challenge as factional politics played a part and the revolt may have been led by one of Henry’s former supporters. The rebellion also saw the murder of the Earl of Northumberland, who was carrying out the King’s instructions. However Henry stamped his authority on the situation by refusing to negotiate over the tax demands and the rebellion was fairly easily put down.
Perkin Warbeck could have been a threat to Henry’s authority. He had received international support and James IV twice invaded with him. Both invasions were fiascos and James would have realised that Warbeck would attract littler support in England. Henry was unable to deal with James and Warbeck as he wished (militarily) due to the Cornish Rebellion. However Henry had effectively neutralized Warbeck through proposing a marriage alliance with James (sealed as the Treaty of Ayton in September 1487) and Warbeck left Scotland before it was signed. Thus Henry is able to neutralize the threat posed by Warbeck, but not in the way he would have chosen.
Conclusion
The Cornish rebellion is therefore a threat to Henry’s authority only in so much as it prevents him doing what he wants in regard to Warbeck. The rebellion is a challenge to his authority (as all rebellions are) but only in so much as it could have enabled Warbeck to succeed was it a threat. The rebels own target of Morton and Bray, whilst a convention of rebellion, could have threatened Henry’s ability to choose his own councillors, however the rebels were never strong enough to stand the slightest chance of achieving their objectives.
Introduction
Set out line of argument – rebellion was a challenge to Henry’s authority and for the period of rebellion itself it stopped him from doing what he wanted. Just because it was a challenge to his authority does not necessarily mean it was a threat, i.e. something capable of removing his authority. Were there were other events that also challenged/threatened his authority to great or lesser degrees: Lambert Simnel, the Yorkshire and Perkin Warbeck.
Define ‘authority’.
How did the rebellion challenge Henry’s authority?
• Law and order: Movement of a large number of people not a social acceptable activity; The rebels murder a subsidy collector, i.e. the King’s representative However the march itself is relatively peaceful.
• Finance: Henry required money (subsidy and 2 fifteenths and tenths) for war with Scotland to suppress Warbeck and respond to a Scottish raid.
Money had been agreed by Parliament. Flamack argues King is acting beyond his authority with the subsidy.
• Councilors: The rebels themselves didn’t directly challenge Henry’s authority, aiming their complaints at “evil councilors” namely Morton and Bray.
• The battles: The battles and Guildford and Blackheath are a clear challenge to Henry’s authority. They are easily put down (15,000 rebels v 25,000 royalists).
• Follow-up: Following the rebellion Henry wanted to have Flamack and Joseph executed in Cornwall for “more terror”, but doesn’t as it is thought this will stir up the
rebels again. Lord Daubeney halts his pursuit of the rebels at the Cornish border for fear of furthering the rebellion.
All these things challenge Henry’s authority but do not in and of themselves threaten his authority. Where there is a threat to his authority is in the rebellion’s consequences.
Henry is unable to pursue the foreign policy he wants, it is this that threatens him as if Warbeck was successful he may no longer be king.
How much of a threat was the Cornish Rebellion when compared to other threats?
Lambert Simnel had perhaps represented the greatest threat to Henry’s authority: he had been crowned king in Ireland, had received international recognition and had forced Henry to battle, East Stoke 1487, which was a hard fought engagement. 1487 could easily have been a repetition of 1485.
Yorkshire Rebellion, like the Cornish one, challenged Henry’s financial authority. Was a serious challenge as factional politics played a part and the revolt may have been led by one of Henry’s former supporters. The rebellion also saw the murder of the Earl of Northumberland, who was carrying out the King’s instructions. However Henry stamped his authority on the situation by refusing to negotiate over the tax demands and the rebellion was fairly easily put down.
Perkin Warbeck could have been a threat to Henry’s authority. He had received international support and James IV twice invaded with him. Both invasions were fiascos and James would have realised that Warbeck would attract littler support in England. Henry was unable to deal with James and Warbeck as he wished (militarily) due to the Cornish Rebellion. However Henry had effectively neutralized Warbeck through proposing a marriage alliance with James (sealed as the Treaty of Ayton in September 1487) and Warbeck left Scotland before it was signed. Thus Henry is able to neutralize the threat posed by Warbeck, but not in the way he would have chosen.
Conclusion
The Cornish rebellion is therefore a threat to Henry’s authority only in so much as it prevents him doing what he wants in regard to Warbeck. The rebellion is a challenge to his authority (as all rebellions are) but only in so much as it could have enabled Warbeck to succeed was it a threat. The rebels own target of Morton and Bray, whilst a convention of rebellion, could have threatened Henry’s ability to choose his own councillors, however the rebels were never strong enough to stand the slightest chance of achieving their objectives.
