How did the Nobility adapt to the growth the Early Modern state?

The Early Modern continues to grow and change due to ‘a particular crisis arising from particular events, personalities, and policies: the ineptitude of James, the corruption of Buckingham, the obstinacy of Strafford, Laud, Charles: the rise of Puritanism, the growth of a sense of constitutionalism, and the development of improved procedural techniques by the House of Commons.’[1] The key changes which occurred in the Early Modern age were economic and colonial growth and the nobility dealt with these developments in a number of ways.

When addressing the identity of the nobility, within the Renaissance period the meaning ‘elite’ ceased to refer to the nobility. It was no longer simply a birth right made up of only the nobility but instead, being noble was not a stable social entity. The nobility was something that was created, and there was also the church, intellectual and municipal elite.
The noble elite were the dominant people in society yet they only made up 2% of the population, they were incredibly powerful and took positions in England such as: lords, knights and esquires. They had an exceptionally large share of wealth, owning 25% of lands in Europe and they had specific privileges, for example most of the European nobility were exempt from tax payment, and held the right to own armies, liveries and peasants.
Mettam argues ‘The influence of the nobility was everywhere in French society. In the localities they had power over the peasantry, over municipal officials and even over royal agents... The higher aristocrats took a lead in provincial affairs, and might have the ear of the king or his ministers at court as well.’[2]

As a general rule, in places where the sate is weaker the nobles tend to be stronger, perhaps because there is a lack of government control so the nobility feel as though it is their place in the social hierarchy to step up and ensure order is kept. Many of the class were wealthy but not all and the nobility were not all born into their positions; they were sometimes elevated from a lower social position. Prior to 1500 in particular, the nobility were in the position of levellers in war, hence, they were leaders in society. However, professionalisation of army role changed.

However, despite their prominence, the traditional historical view is that there was an element of decline within the noble class. It has been claimed that the nobility were in decline since the 11th century and that in the first half of the 17^th century ‘The Commons emerged as a far more important political assembly than the Lords’ and that there was attack on them ‘The early Tudors had striven, not without success, to undermine the strength of the nobility, which they had regarded as a menace to quasi-absolute monarchy’.[3] Stone argues that the events concerning the aristocracy ‘may reasonably be described as a crisis, for it involved major readaption in almost every field of thought and action in order to fit into a rapidly changing environment’.[4]

The traditional role of the nobility is of them as protectors of society (knights) and companions of kings. There was an emphasis placed on physicality and masculinity which explains why the nobility partook in dangerous competitions such as jousting.
However, this role is challenged in the 17^th century when society is less violent no longer as focused on war. Kings wanted more stable and centralised power and less personal participation in wars. Some of the nobility adapted by joining professional armies which provided new opportunities, and some were able to maintain links to the centre of power through the development of Royal Courts in the way that the bureaucrats became the powerful members of the elite, leaving behind the old fashioned nobility who fought and were a threat to kings. The French ruler Louis XIV said in his memoirs 'Disorder reigned everywhere' and Gibson argues that ‘the root cause of disorder was undoubtedly war'[5], forcing the knight role to change.  Instead, people like lawyers took prominent positions within society. They were also able to deal with this shift by keeping hold of power through links to land, (i.e. duke of Norfolk) giving them local prominence, particularly with the power of being less centralised control. It must be noted that the nobility were educated so were very politically aware, and also held two fold political influence through ownership of land and employment of peasants to work and farm these lands. This two fold influence began when nobles became aware that more money could be made from land in better ways than rent and adapt by selling their produce from their domain e.g. Wood. They also purchased more land, particularly during the 1500s because church lands were sold off in the reign of Henry VIII. They also became involved with real estate: buying land and developing it to make profit. During agrarian changes and growth, the nobility again survived through adaptation, overcoming issues by lending money to governments who needed money to fund numerous wars, investing in the colonial empire where there was an absence of change. Another way the nobility managed to maintain power was that they were cultured, so even when the politics of the country changed they still knew how to fit in with society through hunting, reading, jousting, and gambling; all which were instrumental in the growth of the Early Modern state as disposable income was on the increase.

The changing roles led to the nobility adapting into a more bureaucratic role. States needed to be ready for war with professional armies, and this required funding, and taxes which were raised in these times of war led to the taxation of nobility classes, which eroded their special status. Scott and Stoors argue that there is ‘an emerging consensus that the nobility’s economic problems around 1600 were caused primarily by the new scale and purposes of expenditure being undertaken’[6] referring to the costly professional armies which had developed. The nobles adapt to change by serving in a new ways, which leads to growth in higher education. Furthermore, it becomes acceptable for older nobles to take state positions whilst able bureaucrats were made nobles (noblesse de robe). However, From 1650 there appeared to be a breakdown of local support for nobles, and the development of the idea of ‘Royal Court’ pushed them out of the social spotlight, making it easier for the commons to gain favour from the king. As always, the nobility found a way of adaption, by forming links with the centre and taking positions such as chancellor or councillor to the King.

The nobility also asserted their image through a specific identity in terms of language, dress and education and wore the most modern fashions and expensive clothing. You could tell that they were of high status by the clothes they were wearing. Those which adapted become a more distinctive and recognisable group within the community.
They expressed their authority through rebellions, to make demands for their class. For example The Fronde of 1650, which was known as the Fronde des nobles. The origins of this were that the nobility refused to be so taxed, based on their old liberties, or privileges, and the brunt fell upon the bourgeoisie causing resentment and divisions. A consequence of noble participation in conflicts was that 'many had fallen from favour in consequence of their role in the civil wars o the sixteenth century, and others would do so after the Frondes of Louis XIV's minority’ but ‘were still important and powerful royal agents in difficult provinces and 'were essential to the State'.[7]

 Another uprising which the nobility were part of was the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536, the second list of Robert Aske’s demands concerned the nobility ,as they wished for a purification of the Henrican government, with complaints about 'base councillors' and 'villein blood'. The Lincolnshire articles also referred to them as men 'of low birth and small reputation'[8] and believed that they should be purged from the government. Their involvement with uprisings showed their power to crack down of state whilst minimising the threat of widespread social disorder by not rebelling on too great a scale, thus their adaptation to be a ruling class.

The key factor to how the nobility maintained power was that they held the ability to continuously adjust and adapt to growth of state. The Impact of French Revolution was also a key reason to why the noble class changed, due to the politicisation of the lower classes. This means that the peasants were not only in the spotlight, but the Bourgeoisie were able to take similar roles that were usually reserved for the nobility. Finally, the nobility were always reasserting their identity, through their cultural contributions such as increasing educational or political activity such as involvement in political movements and maintenance of order and higher education. They used culture to distinguish themselves from other groups which always allowed them to adapt and change and thus remain within society as a powerful group.

Bibliography

M. L. Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of October 1536, (Manchester University Press 1996), Page 104

W. Gibson, A Tragic Farce: The Fronde (1648-1653), (1998 Exeter), page 6

R. S. Mettam, Douglas Johnson, French History and Society: The Wars of Religion to the Fifth Republic (1974, Meuthen & Co Ltd), page 4

L. Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641, (Oxford University Press 1965), page 9, 10, 15

Ed. H. M. Scott, The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Volume I: Western and Southern Europe, edition 2, (2007 Palgrave Macmillan), page 27

---

[1]Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641, (Oxford University Press 1965), page 10

[2] Roger S. Mettam, Douglas Johnson, French History and Society: The Wars of Religion to the Fifth Republic (1974, Meuthen & Co Ltd), page 4

[3] Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641, page 9

[4] Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641, page 15

[5] Wendy Gibson, A Tragic Farce: The Fronde (1648-1653), (1998 Exeter), page 6

[6] Ed. H.M Scott, The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Volume I: Western and Southern Europe, edition 2, (2007 Palgrave Macmillan), page 27

[7] Mettam, French History and Society: The Wars of Religion to the Fifth Republic, page 4

[8] M. L. Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of October 1536, (Manchester University Press 1996), Page 104