A negative assessment

I was very pleased to find my students this morning, who sat their
Henry VII paper, found the paper comfortable and rewarding. Why
rewarding? Well, a number of them are at least R3 sympathisers if
not outright Ricardians. And the last question on the paper was did
they agree that H7's achievements were essentially negative? They
thoroughly enjoyed that! So I wondered if people here might fancy
venturing a view on it?
B

Brunhilde wrote: The last question on the paper was
did they agree that Henry VII's achievements were
essentially negative? ... I wondered if people here
might fancy venturing a view on it?

***

I can agree. In spite of S.B. Chrimes' and Michael K.
Jones' moderating effects on my opinion of Henry VII,
I still see his reign as fairly negative.

From the act of parliament that back-dated Henry VII's
reign to August 21st, declaring everyone who fought
for Richard III a traitor so that their land and money
could be confiscated, to Edmund Dudley's list of 84
extortion cases that qualified for compensation when
Henry VII's will was executed, Henry VII's reign gave
money priority over justice. Henry VII left a budget
surplus and the story of Morton's Fork. Henry VIII
spent the surplus, but the story of Morton's Fork
lived on.

When I compare that to the improvements in the
money-raising and justice systems that Richard III had
begun to make, I feel the English people lost a lot
when Richard died at Bosworth.

I could also jokingly claim that Henry VII made a
positive contribution by spreading the Tudor Myth.
The Myth contributed to one of Shakespeare's most
popular plays. The Myth and Shakespeare's Richard III
have provided 500+ years of fun and profit for authors
and readers, playwrites, script-writers, movie-makers,
actors, audiences, and hopefully, teachers and
students. If Henry VII could have known how much
money his myth was going to generate over the next 500
years, he might have been pleased.

Marion


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Brunhilde wrote: The last question on the paper was
> did they agree that Henry VII's achievements were
> essentially negative? ... I wondered if people here
> might fancy venturing a view on it?
>
> ***
>
> I can agree. In spite of S.B. Chrimes' and Michael K.
> Jones' moderating effects on my opinion of Henry VII,
> I still see his reign as fairly negative.

Thanks, so do I. Brought up in the 7-s academic fashion of regarding
him as pretty good, though not as good as E4, I have recently
changed my mind and taken on a far less positive view of the reign
(all R3 matters aside, since I can only be negative on those!).
>
> From the act of parliament that back-dated Henry VII's
> reign to August 21st, declaring everyone who fought
> for Richard III a traitor so that their land and money
> could be confiscated, to Edmund Dudley's list of 84
> extortion cases that qualified for compensation when
> Henry VII's will was executed, Henry VII's reign gave
> money priority over justice. Henry VII left a budget
> surplus and the story of Morton's Fork. Henry VIII
> spent the surplus, but the story of Morton's Fork
> lived on.

Certainly, and he nearly paid the price of observers like Vergil are
to be believed. The bonds and recognizances reached astonishing
proportions - Burgavenny, for instance - and even loyal servants
like Oxford who rousted his men to do the king honour came a-
cropper. Paroid, stingy, shifty....these are word that spring to
mind. The paper actually focussed on justice, for the first time.
The lack of justice in Henry's reign is fast becoming notorious
thanks to Carpenter and Gunn, and the old legend of restoring
stability after the wars is a myth in this respect. Dudley's
confession is an excellent example of the corruption under Henry. So
do the Uveton (sp?) cases from Dorset. Edward and Richard heard
cases in person, I have never come across evoidence that Henry did
so. Rather he created the Council Learned aimed at wringing every
last penny out of essentially loyal subjects.
>
> When I compare that to the improvements in the
> money-raising and justice systems that Richard III had
> begun to make, I feel the English people lost a lot
> when Richard died at Bosworth.

I am sure we all think so. It makes me cross when some people try to
claim the Court of Requests for Henry, but of course it's origins
are pure Ricardian.
>
> I could also jokingly claim that Henry VII made a
> positive contribution by spreading the Tudor Myth.
> The Myth contributed to one of Shakespeare's most
> popular plays. The Myth and Shakespeare's Richard III
> have provided 500+ years of fun and profit for authors
> and readers, playwrites, script-writers, movie-makers,
> actors, audiences, and hopefully, teachers and
> students. If Henry VII could have known how much
> money his myth was going to generate over the next 500
> years, he might have been pleased.
>
> Marion

Wonder if any of my students said that? ;-) I hope they remembered
to mention Dudley's confession...I think surviving, whilst positive
in the face of the alternative, is not enough to be seen as a
positive achievement. A chapel, a palace, a new rose and a warship
are not a great deal of legacy to leave behind. Unless one sees
producing the egotistical bully boy, Henry VIII, as an achievement
of course! ;-)
Brunhild

I hope this isn't rude, but could I ask that anyone replying to my
posts do so in the forum rather than by email? Sorry.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus