Hey Lauren, I was hoping to pick your brain on a topic I’m writing an essay on. The question is ‘early modern states wasted money on pomp’. For arguments sake, I’m focusing on the transitionary period between Edward IV, Richard III and Henry Tudor, as I’ve read a bit of literature from the time which pointed to the great expense of Royal Tours, holding court and hosting artists/scholars as being useful to the stability of the realm in times of political instability. Any thoughts?

joannalannister:

Oh gosh, this sounds like a fascinating topic, and one I would love to read about, but while I’m good with fake ASOIAF history, I’m afraid I’m not the person to ask when it comes to real-world medieval history. The most I could say is, “Yeah, that sounds about right.” But I’m sure my favorite historians on my dash could say more; @racefortheironthrone, @poorshadowspaintedqueens, @catherinedemedici, @bethwoodvilles, @sansaregina, @morgauseloveshersisters, and anyone else knowledgable on this topic, any thoughts?

Well, both positions are kind of true – the pomp and ceremony of the court was a vital component of overawing one’s subjects and instilling devotion to the monarchy, to say nothing of drawing in nobles looking to gain royal favor. At the same time, the fiscal pressures of such pomp at times created more political tension than they were worth – look at how many rebellions in English history started with a king running out of money and pissing everyone off by “innovating” ways to get money. 

OTHO, pomp wasn’t usually the major drain on the public purse – war was, due to the early modern military revolution that dramatically increased the already considerable cost of going to war. So if we look at Henry VIII who blew through several fortunes that Henry VII, Cardinal Wolsey, and Thomas Cromwell made for him, most of the money went into mostly pointless French, Scottish, or Irish wars rather than productive investments.