What are the primary differences between the late Medieval English state (14th-15th century) and the Tudor state of Henry VII and Henry VIII? What did the early Tudors introduce that was objectively brand new? (Other than the Act of Supremacy) The late Medieval English state had significant power over the church in England and, when in the hands of a great ruler like Edward III or Henry V, could call upon a considerable tax yield to support their endeavors.
Henry VII made significant moves to subordinate the nobility to him, but the nobility had no need of subordination when competently led. (Again under Edward III or Henry V)
Henry VII and Henry VIII (due to the Dissolution of the Monasteries) increased the crown’s revenue, but it had waned significantly due disastrous reign of Henry VI the Wars of the Roses. Revenue paled in comparison to that of what Edward III was able to raise in 1337-1338, some £500,000 from Parliament-levied taxes accord to Mark Ormrod.
What was the day to day, nitty gritty, bureaucratic differences between early Tudor government and that of the late medieval state? To put it simply, could Henry VII or Henry VIII command a stronger royal government than that of Edward III or Henry V? The English state had been on the more centralized end of government compared to the other major European states, what did the early Tudors add to that?
My questions stem from a BBC podcast I recently listened to about the Tudor state. Points were made that most of the administrative and political policies of Henry VII and Henry VIII had been done before (apart from the Act of Supremacy of course), implying the early Tudor state was not so “un-medieval” as is generally thought or asserted by Geoffrey Elton.
I think there are a few different factors to consider.
Firstly, let's draw a temporal distinction within the late Medieval Period itself. Edward III raised his £500,000 in 1337 pre Black Death. The Black Death which reached England c.1348 was the premier economic event of the Middle Ages. It had a significant impact on the population of England- it is believed the Black Death fatalities in England ranged from c. 25% (Josiah William Russell) to up to 60% (Benedictow) of the population. Not only did this result in a significant loss of revenue, the decline in population led to fundamental shifts in England's economic model. Lack of population meant workers were able to bargain for higher wages, despite Edward's attempts to prevent this with the Statute of Labourers in 1351. In addition, Serfdom largely ended after the Peasants Revolt of 1381 and was replaced by Copyhold. As a result, the well-oiled revenue machine which had pulled revenue up from near slave farmers to the top, built Medieval Cathedrals etc. etc. was less effective.
Throughout the Hundred Years War, England had funding problems. Waging wars was an expensive business. Even pre-Black Death, around 1344, Edward III partially defaulted on loans of £225,000 from Florentine bankers. Rather than debase the currency, his successors tried to raise taxes to plug the gap, with limited success. Take for example, Richard II, who first tried a 1377 tax on moveables, which raised about £22,000, then repealed it and levied a new Poll Tax in 1379. Expected to raise £50,000, it only raised around £25,000. When the threat of invasion by France was raised by the Chancellor in 1386 and he requested to raise an unprecedented sum, Parliament refused. Richard's reign became very unstable as nobles revolted and ended with him being deposed and the tax system remained largely unchanged after 1380 until Henry VIII.
Given taxes hadn't worked too well, Henry V turned to private loans, borrowing from the Mayor of London amongst others, and towns. As long as the wars went well, everyone was happy. But when the war soured, the state had severe difficulty funding itself. Henry VI was in debt by £372,000 in 1449, just before the end of the Hundred Years war, and also managed to get embroiled in a trade war on wool, a major English export, with Burgundy.
In this sorry state, the English monarchy and tax system passed into the hands of the Tudors. If we attempt to draw an overall conclusion for the period, it is one of high expenditure (on the wars), and declining revenues, which were attempted to be met with taxes or loans rather than debasement of the currency.
Moving on to the Tudors, here again we need to draw a distinction between Henry VII and Henry VIII. Henry VII did not innovate much, but he did hire merciless tax collectors (the chief of whom were subsequently so unpopular they were executed by his son Henry VIII). As he had taken the throne by conquest, nobles who had opposed him could arbitrarily be heavily taxed. In addition, Henry engaged in far fewer overseas wars and backed the important wool trade against foreign competition. What had previously been a bankrupt crown was restored to solvency with Henry VII leaving his son a fortune of £1.25m. To answer your original question, Henry VII had probably the strongest royal government since William the Conqueror- solid personal finances and relative internal and external peace.
From Henry VII, the crown passed to his profligate son Henry VIII. Henry VIII levied funds for a multitude of purposes for quite spectacular amounts. Take for example his network of fortifications along the south coast known as the Device Forts which cost £376,000. He raised funds through three new methods, a new form of personal income tax introduced in 1513 as opposed to the old land and town based taxes (mixed results ranging from £5,700 in 1526 to £109,000 in 1545), the Dissolution of the Monasteries, a land grab which brought in around £120,000 a year, and in his later years debasement of the currency which granted him the epithet "Old Coppernose" (his silver coins having so much copper in). Throughout his life, Henry ran the state's finances at their limit, spending lavishly on wars, ships such as the Mary Rose (sank on its maiden voyage), tapestries (over 2,000) and food. He might have been able to grab slightly more of the pie, but underneath the economy was still largely the same agrarian economy with wool based exports it had been for most of the Middle Ages. In addition, the kingdom's population had barely increased since Edward III's heyday given i. loss of territory in France and ii. population collapse caused by the Black Death.
If we conclude therefore-
The Medieval system itself had been under strain since Edward III and the Black Death. When properly managed and with a recovered population i.e. by the time of Henry VII, this system generated a large amount of money with few changes to the mechanics since Edward III
Henry VIII introduced new bureaucratic changes- new taxes, land grabs, and large scale currency debasement, which enabled him to grab a marginally larger share of the revenue. But his excessive spending meant the state's finances were in a worse position