For the first quarter of the sixteenth century, neither the naval administrations of the Tudor nor Valois dynasties changed notably from their medieval predecessors. Apart from the admirals, most officials overseeing the navy's upkeep were employed on an ad hoc basis. When the navy was required for service, it was organised through relying on similar (and in some instances the same) private networks as the army. Yet, with the expansion of long-distance trade, and with both state-approved and non-sanctioned violence at sea increasing, the early modern period quickly witnessed a rising demand for naval power. In turn, with the growth of armed sea forces, reform to administrative infrastructure was required to accommodate for it. However, the political and geographical differences between England and France, covered in this chapter, led to the emergence of two distinct organisational structures for controlling and maintaining these resources. The role and authority of the respective admirals, in particular, was reformed with significantly different results. Whereas in England the overall responsibilities of the admiral for naval affairs diminished as administrative bodies were created to oversee many of the office's tasks, France on the other hand, experienced quite the opposite, as its most senior position received greater jurisdictional control over the kingdom's sea forces.

Scholarship that has addressed the role and authority of the two admiralties has come to the same opinion. The French admiral held greater administrative responsibility than his English counterpart. He controlled and exercised his rights over the admiralty courts, while also being the principal orchestrator for organising maritime resources for war. In England, on the other hand, the lord admiral's role was more superficial. Although he was expected to command naval campaigns, it was chiefly the monarch and their professional administrative specialists who transformed and then subsequently upheld administration, especially after the creation of the Council of Marine Causes. The holder of the English admiral office then, unlike in France, was, according to C. S. L. Davies, ‘remote from the day-to-day administration.’ Historians have consequently questioned the purpose of the redundant English office, with N. A. M. Rodger and Andrew Thrush suggesting that England's naval administration was ‘quite capable of functioning without’ it.