Lesson 3: retaining, permission and the limits of a crackdown
By UK A Level History · independent study · myAudience
myAudience original historical teaching illustration. Image: illustration, not a documentary photograph. · Original generated supporting illustration; no noncommercial archival artwork included.
Lesson 3: retaining, permission and the limits of a crackdown
Retaining linked a lord to people who served or supported him. Such networks could support household service, local influence and royal government as well as intimidation or violence. We should not turn every retainer into a soldier or every lord into a rebel. The Crown's problem was how to regulate useful relationships while preventing independent power from undermining justice and authority.
Gordon McKelvie's study of Tudor licences examines the place of permission within this system. His discussion of Henry VII explains that the 1504 legislation recognised licences bearing the king's authority as a route to exemption. Licensing did not begin from nothing in 1504. The significance of the legislation lies in its legal treatment of authorised retaining and enforcement, rather than a blanket abolition of all relationships between lords and followers.
A particularly useful case is Margaret Beaufort's licence of 1505, which McKelvie discusses from an enrolled signet letter. The surviving wording permits her to keep people already retained to her. Three men associated with her livery faced proceedings, but that does not mean she herself was indicted. Nor can we assume she had personally instructed or even knew of every action attributed to those men. A historian must distinguish the Crown's recognition of her legitimate service network from the conduct and claims of individuals invoking her name.
Permission changed the relationship between monarchy and local power. If authorised retaining depended on royal approval, a lord's network could remain useful while its legitimacy was tied to the Crown. This could strengthen royal control without destroying the social structures through which government operated. It is also a reminder that legality was not simply identical to the existence of followers: household exceptions, licences and the circumstances of particular actions mattered.
James Ross's study of Lord Bergavenny offers a close case through which to test sweeping accounts of repression. In the opening section inspected for this draft, he sets a large 1507 fine within a sequence of proceedings and local rivalries. We should therefore avoid making one spectacular demand stand for every stage of the king's relationship with that lord. This draft does not claim to have verified the article's complete later discussion or the eventual payment of that fine.
The original-spelling Chamber Book entry on folio 156r gives a smaller, precise financial transaction involving Lord Bergavenny and Edward Ferrers. It records two obligations of £50 each, one for Easter and one for Hallowtide, with a total of £100. Marginal entries record payments on 16 May and 3 November. The arithmetic and payment annotations matter more than the headline amount: this particular record is not the huge later fine and cannot be substituted for it. A modernisation error in the November date further shows why careful reading is necessary.
Together these cases suggest a monarchy using legal definitions, licences, liabilities and discretion. They do not demonstrate that all noble power disappeared or that local disputes stopped. Regulation could increase the Crown's influence while depending on noble networks. The existence of permission also means that a count of prosecutions alone would not reveal the full system: to evaluate it we would need evidence of licences, actual enforcement, outcomes and the service provided by authorised retainers.
The surviving record is uneven. McKelvie notes a list of Thomas Lovell's many retained men in 1508, although the corresponding licence does not survive. That is a warning against treating absence from one surviving category as proof that an activity did not occur. Conversely, a known large network does not establish that every lord held an equivalent licence. Survival and representativeness must be tested rather than assumed.
Worked example: Explain how royal licensing could regulate retaining without abolishing every relationship between a lord and followers.
Gordon McKelvie's study of Tudor licences examines the place of permission within this system. His discussion of Henry VII explains that the 1504 legislation recognised licences bearing the king's authority as a route to exemption. Licensing did not begin from nothing in 1504. The significance of the legislation lies in its legal treatment of authorised retaining and enforcement, rather than a blanket abolition of all relationships between lords and followers.
A particularly useful case is Margaret Beaufort's licence of 1505, which McKelvie discusses from an enrolled signet letter. The surviving wording permits her to keep people already retained to her. Three men associated with her livery faced proceedings, but that does not mean she herself was indicted. Nor can we assume she had personally instructed or even knew of every action attributed to those men. A historian must distinguish the Crown's recognition of her legitimate service network from the conduct and claims of individuals invoking her name.
Permission changed the relationship between monarchy and local power. If authorised retaining depended on royal approval, a lord's network could remain useful while its legitimacy was tied to the Crown. This could strengthen royal control without destroying the social structures through which government operated. It is also a reminder that legality was not simply identical to the existence of followers: household exceptions, licences and the circumstances of particular actions mattered.
Answer: Royal licensing provided an authorised exemption and tied permission to the Crown. Margaret Beaufort’s 1505 licence and the distinct proceedings against three men show why permission, individual conduct and enforcement must be separated. A licence is not proof that every retainer behaved lawfully or that all local power disappeared.
Check your understanding: did the 1504 legislation mean that all retaining was forbidden?
Answer: no. The study identifies royal licensing as an exemption and recognises earlier authorised practice. A stronger explanation evaluates how permission and enforcement connected noble service to royal authority.
Why: Review the actual dated sources and their limits. Reading and these unmarked practice models do not establish mastery, a predicted grade, full route coverage or authenticated independent NEA.