Mackie's survey of The Earlier Tudors: 1485-1558 marks as its beginning the end of Richard and the assumption of the Tudor Henry VII (Harri Tudur). Despite the historical popularity of ascribing numerous differences between the men and their lines, Mackie follows instead the aspects of that theory which sees the continuity of government and the general populace as more plainly reflecting British history of the period.
For example, the state was really just "...the expression of some local concern" that had a leader and retainers that could sustain itself over long periods of time. This sustainable self-sufficient organization had only one objective, supporting its own interests. Amoral, but practical it cultivated the middle classes and its mercantile economy, because in this way the practitioners and workers could and would keep to their own businesses. A state strove to keep the nobles and church contained and, it worked to be a better monarch for the rest than could be found in stories handed down from feudal days. "Representative institutions' were routinely outweighed by council men and close advisers, who were often the king's or 'new men'.
But as Brady points out regarding German states, the 'ultimate reason' Mackie says, for a prince or a king was force.
"He has a standing army of professional soldiers, ... a few ships, ... above all ... powder and guns. He is wise concerning men; he may have personal charm and the art of acquiring and keeping popularity. He may be the idol of his subjects. But in the end he stands, not for liberty, but for authority.... It was the service of the Renaissance to tear away the decent sheepskin ... [of] the medieval wolf ... [since] one great wolf was better than a pack of lesser carnivores." [pp. 5-6]
Mackie tells us the very idea of a 'New Monarchy' in England then comes from the 19th century History of the English People of John Richard Green. (In two separate editions the term comprises different specific dates in his chapter headings.) But Green, says Mackie, 'plainly' didn't see a change so much as a 'constitutional regression' when 'parliamentary process was almost suspended'.[p.6] Other, more recent authority, Mackie continues, stresses that the fifteenth-century 'hardly conceived the idea' what a constitution was. They had only the beginnings of a history of such a thing. Any revolution or 'so-called experiment' in government in England at the time of the Tudor entrance onto the monarchy, was merely a breakdown of the traditional forms of opposition between the king and parliament. In this period, "... the crown recovered the initiative in public legislation...", which enabled a "... restoration of confidence between Crown and parliament." [p.7]This take comes (thru Mackie) from A.F. Pollard's Parliament in the War of the Roses (1936).
The War between Lancaster and York had worn the people out. "England had witnessed in three decades several violent transferances of authority, and these transferences had been without any change in the 'constitution'."[p.7] The war in some ways didn't end in 1485. Fresh attacks occurred in 1487 in the Battle at Stokes Field. There was a 'Yorkist pretender' that lingered til 1497. He was accepted as a legitimate heir and the son of former Edward V by numerous heads of state in Europe, such as Maximilian. Henry and his new in-laws the Woodville's had enemies,to be sure, just like those who came before. Henry would go on to continue policies in economics, and in organizing his state. Policies that had been set up before him. The fact was that Henry remained and his family would continue his line as monarchs. This is what Mackie wants us to remember.
The wars were terrible and everyone was 'heartily sick' of them. The Scots connived for an end to them, the French made fun of them. Philippe de Commines called them 'divine retribution' for invading France. Thomas More would bewail them as cutting England's ancient noble blood lines in half. 'Who could yout trust if you mistrusted your brother? Who would be spared afterward that was found guilty of killing his brother?' The biggest effect was the loss of so many soldiers and the ends of so many famous families. Thomas More knew his subject.
"... these matters be King's games, as it were stage-plays, and for the more part played upon scaffolds. In which poor men be but lookers-on. And they that wise be will meddle no further." [p.10]
Mackie says the Chronicle of London in its reports, reflects much of the same distant but wise attitude. The weather, prices, new mayors, bank closings were listed along with hangings and trials and killings. The wars were gentlemen's - only sometimes - deadly contests and there was little anybody else might do about it. Whether to visit King Richard III or to see Henry VII in triumph eighteen days later, the people wore their violet clothing to honor them both.
In Mackie's own words, "... a great part of England must have been vexed by the constant necessity for vigilance and by the interruption of trade. It can have been no pleasure to the citizens of London to pay for the strong watch which must ride about the town in troublous times. ... there must have been endless dislocations in town and country. With the dynastic issue itself England felt little concern, but she was very anxious to see the end of uncertainty, and prepared to support any authority which seemed likely to bring the purposeless quarrel to an end." [p.11]
Further, Mackie asserts, the new dynasty came from two things. These were the attitude England had for the wars, and Henry's abilities and character. [p.8] The extent of the king's power would remain much the same as it had been. His authority was what mattered. The Tudors would ensure this continued in ways that seemed new but had deep roots.
_____________________________________
notes and pagination from JD Mackie: The Earlier Tudors 1485-1558 Oxford, UK 1957
