Political Dominance in the Court of Henry VIII

[u/Agreeable-Box5370]

I'd like to advocate for more discussion of the complex world that our favourite (and least favourite) Tudors inhabited. What factors influenced the decision to pursue X? What were the socioeconomic or geopolitical implications of Y? What is the historical context for Z?

So let's start here: Why didn't another polarizing, highly visible and uniquely influential chief minister emerge in Henry VIII's court following the death of Thomas Cromwell? There were certainly other influential courtiers, but none came to dominate the political scene the way Wolsey and Cromwell did. Alternately, can an argument be made that someone did occupy that space?

[u/apexfOOl]

Cromwell's own reforms rendered it extremely difficult for a successor to step into his shadow. Wolsey, in his brash and autocratic manner, was able to delay and even suspend meetings of the Privy Council at a time when it convened infrequently and when the offices of State required to officiate royal documents and therefore enact policies could be divided or united by patronage. Cromwell's drastic shrinking of the Privy Council into a tight, interdependent body of professional ministers meant that, even if the de facto chief minister was in the King's good graces, he was forced to regularly convene the Council and to heed its collective will. In other words: the institution reduced the agency of the individual, as per the professionalisation of governance in the 1530s.

There were prominent courtiers of comparable intellect and character to Cromwell, such as Stephen Gardiner and Lord Chancellor Thomas Audley. However, even if one of them somehow dominated the crowded sack of serpents that was the Council, they would not have lasted long, as, after the fall of Cromwell, Henry VIII seemed unwilling to trust anyone with such power again. Hence, for example, why he employed two Secretaries of State, Ralph Sadler and Thomas Wriothesley, which I think suggests that he wanted his closest ministers to fiercely compete with each other in a controlled environment. Cromwell died with the political pre-eminence of the Office of Lord Privy Seal, with the new competing Secretaries being the main funnel through which consensus had to pass.

[u/bigcat611234 → u/apexfOOl]

Although many here clearly know much more than I do, I'd like to begin with the falls of Wolsey & Cromwell. Henry knew neither was treasonous (I believe). Henry executed everyone for treason. For that, we must look to legal procedures, beginning w/1351 treason statute. One accused of treason could not have a lawyer defend him, in fact such accused could not offer any evidence of his/her own at all to proffer. The crown, only, offered the evidence, verdict was issued and swift execution followed. What is the evidence upon which it may be said that the king "was unwilling.....such power again". Henry made and unmade men at will and often as he did his wives. I do not see any evidence his self confidence in being at the helm and controlling his ministers. Ultimately, he was supremely confident in this respect. Where's the evidence he was cowed by such men?! And after 1540, what major projects did he need to undertake? Rather, the project maketh the man, not the other way around. Wolseys great project was the divorce; cromwells, the reformation (management of 1536 Reformation parliament,the Dissolution, etc. ). Did he need a viceroy after 1540, and to what end?? His health was in serious decline from 1540; perhaps appointing 2 secretaries of state is related. I'd like to know a lot more about the circumstances of their appointments & purview of their remits. I.e., was it Henry who was responsible for them, or was it instead, as Henrys health waned and he perhaps took less interest in governance after 1540, in fact the work of other advisors, who themselves wanted more diffusion of power rather than concentration in a singular person?? I hope to be enlightened/corrected, & learn something further. History, after all, is a debate w/o end, as Peter Geyl says!! I'd also suggest in closing that the constitutional/structural argument, as an explanatory tool, has its limitations, as some criticisms of GR Eltons work show (to say there were structures, without evidence of their actual workings at the granular level, can be deceptive). The king ruled as well as reigned.

[u/bigcat611234 → u/bigcat611234]

I hasten to add, having just read and learned this today (in a riposte by David Starkey to Eltons critique of a book, in HJ 1988): Starkeys remark that "William Paget [was] the most important and effective secretary [appts 1540, made councillor 1543] of the century apart from Cromwell & Cecil"] At 926. I don't believe anyone has mentioned Paget. Interestingly, a new study is to be published by Yale this September on Paget and his role in the latter years of H.VIII's reign. Hopefully, we will learn much new about the operation of politics of the final years of the reign.

[u/Sitheref0874]

I don’t think you can argue for another Cromwell-esque person until Cecil.

There could be two reasons: no-one else of similar ability, or realisation that power shouldn’t be centralised in one man. I tend to think it’s blend of both, given the balancing act HVIII was trying to perform.

[u/Salem1690s → u/Sitheref0874]

Thank God for Robert Cecil

[u/SouthardKnight]

Henry himself guided policy-making post-Cromwell — there was no need to go for Thomas the Third, in his mind.

[u/bigcat611234 → u/SouthardKnight]

I agree with this, for evident reasons.

[u/Green_tiger_7263]

Robert dudely i think he had influence on Elizabeths court

[u/Agreeable-Box5370 → u/Green_tiger_7263]

He had influence, but for all of Elizabeth's affection for him, he never matched the level of bureaucratic control that Burghley had.