Henry vii greedy?

Ok lets get down to it.
so the statement goes....
"Henry vii was lead by avarice."

Any ideas/help would be sso grateful :smile:

Reply 1

davireland

Don't think thats strictly true, he was led by the desire to secure his dynasty and pass the throne on to one of his sons without any problems. He was so rapacious in his later years because he got more grouchy following the death of Arthur and Elizabeth and that he wanted to build up a strong financial situation for his successor.

Reply 2

*anon*

plus does anyone know any historians who support/against this? x

Reply 3

artorscience?

I would suggest reading what John Guy has to say, always a good historian for anyone doing Tudor England at A-level. In this article he sums up some historiography on the position of Henry VII as founder of a stable monarchy which is in part related to the question you have posed.

And my short answer as to whether he was lead by avarice would be to say that he was not. His early aims were all for the stability of the Tudor monarchy, he was a hard principled man who knew what was best. His financial policies were for the purpose of removing power from the hands of nobles and gentry to secure his own place on the throne not solely for the purpose of gaining riches for himself. He did not display his wealth as other monarchs of his time did, rather he knew the importance of a buoyant and well funded court having seen the back handed playings in French courts where the princes were subject to control from more powerful and wealthy lords. Financial stability was crucial to his government etc. much more for the power and control it gave him rather than personal gain. Not to say that he didn't want money for himself...

Reply 4

rainbow drops

I don't think he was greedy as such, I think he was very cautious in his methods of rule and didn't waste money like his son did, which led to him having a lot of it. He became obsessed with money in the later years of his reign due to paranoia about things like the Simnel/Warbeck plots, foreign threats, opposition from the nobility and the deaths of Arthur and Elizabeth. That's my opinion anyway.

Reply 5

Winter Frost

YES: Empson and Dudley unpopular for squeezing money, expolited use of recongisances, use of simony, only went to war once for Brittany and no fighting took place, arguments with Ferdinand about Catherine's dowry, FRANCIS BACON (17th century) claims he bled every available source of income, had reputation of being miserly which was not expected of a king at the time, initialled every page in accounts and needed glasses! Many attainders e.g. Sir William Stanley and not many reversed, expolited use of feudal dues e.g. labelling large landowners as 'tenants-in-chief' to benefit from their deaths, used Order of Garter instead of rewarded subjects with land.

NO: look at his expenditure with architecture and entertaining, was usurper so needed to fund dynasty, compared to other previous kings did not have much money, French king received more taxes, he lent money to Philip of Burg and Maximilian, money=security especially with so many threats like Pretenders and death of family members

CONCLUSION: whatever you think

This is helpful in my revision!

Reply 6

davireland

Do you know that last years question on Edexcel unit one was very similar to this. It was "Using all sources do you agree with the view that Henry VII was rapacious"

Reply 7

kitkat21

how was Henry the 8th greedy

any ideas or helpful comments

Reply 8

Anastasiapetrova

fracis bacon argues he had no troubles of war and had a substantial amount of money, and he wanted to leave it all for his son. by contract, John guy argues that he often was forced to borrow money from others and had to rely on others. He spent extravagantly and lavishly on buildings, jewels etc.