How effectively Henry ruled England in the 1540s Flashcards
What are the 3 areas to consider when deciding whether Henry ruled effectively during the 1540s?
(Order of significance)
- Foreign policy
- Factional politics
- Securing the succession
What evidence is there that Henry failed to effectively control factionalism during the 1540s?
Crucial role of reformists in government:
- Sir Anthony Denny - given charge of the king’s Privy Chamber. Controlled access to the king’s private rooms
- Sir William Paget - appointed Henry’s Private Secretary. Controlled all written information that reached the king
Both also had access to the king and could influence him in private conversations - control it so that reformists had more access to the king
- Supposedly their reformist influence in removal of 1544 Gardiner on trumped-up charges, and 1546 of the arrest of the influential Norfolk (Howard) and son
Links to succession - made reformist-dominant
What evidence is there that Henry failed to secure the line of succession?
Plans to leave a ‘balanced’ Regency Council undermined by Denny and Paget (link to factionalism)
- Details about the Regency Council suposedly only added when Henry close to death and unable to prevent changes
- Easier with Gardiner removed and Norfolk in the Tower (link to factionalism) - perhaps futher evidence of reformists trying to seize power on Henry’s death
- Dry stamp - possibly added clauses allowing reformists to reward themselves and making Seymour Lord Protector Somerset
- Denny and Paget able to keep king’s death quiet for several days to consolidate power (let Somerset have control of Edward)
- Somerset able to exercise virutal royal power after Henry’s death (the religious changes made against Henry’s will)
- Preoccupied with foreign policy
What evidence challenges the view that Henry failed to secure his succession?
- First part of Henry’s will was drawn up in 1546 with the king’s knowledge and was witnessed
- He added Mary and Elizabeth to succession line to increase Edward’s security
- Smooth take-over by Edward upon Henry’s death (although more to do with reformist power than Henry’s actions)
Overall how successful was Henry in securing his succession?
Not terribly
Dominated by reformist faction (link to factionalism), although there was a smooth transition
Overall how effective was Henry in controlling factionalism?
Very ineffective
Most significantly ineffective as links to poor control of succession with the reformists taking control
However earlier successes e.g. execution of Catherine Howard and giving Cranmer control of his trial shows some evidence of assertiveness, at least towards beginning of 1540s
Any evidence that Henry was effective in controlling factionalism?
Some assertiveness over conservative faction
- Execution of Catherine Howard - no longer fooled by Norfolk and conservatives
- Decision to marry more realistic Catherine Parr
- Giving Cranmer control of his trial - and some historians argue he could have prevented the trial and Cranmer’s embarrassment, suggesting useing it to assert his authority
What general evidence is there that Henry’s foreign policy of the 1540s was a failure?
- Over £2 million spent (10 years income) - all money from Dissolution for little gain
- Long-term financial difficulties as coinage was debased for extra funds
What evidence is there that Henry’s foreign policy towards Scotland was successful?
(Why going to war with them?)
Auld Alliance strengthened by marriage of James V and Mary of Guise
- War in 1542
- 1541 James V did not show up in York to meet Henry
- James siding with French in 1530s when England could have done with support - twice marrying French princesses
- Protected rebels of Pilgrimage of Grace
- Anglo-Imperial alliance had sparked Scottish border raids
- Battle of Solway Moss
- Norfolk’s troop about 3:1 but won - propaganda victory
- 10 days later James V died
- Ruler = Mary, a baby
- 1543 Treaty of Greenwich Edward and Mary to wed
What evidence is there that Henry’s foreign policy towards Scotland was a failure?
- 1543 Treaties of Greenwich = failures
- Bribing catpives did not work
- Mary not handed over
- 1544-5 Earl of Hertford (Seymour)’s ‘Rough-wooing’ series of raids on Scottish towns - burned up parts of Edinburgh
- Drove Scots and French closer together (Mary would marry the French Dauphin) - later monarchs’ problem
- Hertford givent too few troops to inflict major damage because of French simultaneous attack
- Could still launch raids across the border
Overall was Henry’s foreign policy against Scotland more a success or a failure?
More a failure
Despite earlier victory subsequent actions made Scotland more of a threat by not securing marriage and reinforing Auld Alliance
What evidence is there that Henry’s foreign policy to Frence in the 1540s was a success?
- Invaded France in 1544 with Charles and captured Bourlogne
- Henry’s glory in war and land on continent dream
- More than Francis or Charles managed in same period
- Managed without help of allies - boosted Henry’s prestige
- Restored some of Henry’s honour amongst European princes after lack of success after 1520
- June 1546 Treaty of Camp (Ardres) allowed to keep Bourlogne for 7 years, France payed all outstanding pensions payments
What evidence is there that in the 1540s Henry’s foreign policy towards France was a failure?
Financial:
- Bourlogne cost him around £2 million
- France got Bourlogne back a a bargain price
- MacCulloch: Henry had ‘engineered a mid-Tudor crisis’ even without epidemics and poor harvests
- Dissolution money gone, necessitated debasement, heavy taxation, forced loans, and borrowing from Antwerp money market
Gains:
- Only allowed to keep for 7 years
Security:
- Bourlogne captured same day Charles made peace with Francis - England without allies
- Battle at Solent (link to Auld Alliance) where Mary Rose sunk
- Money and French threat made Edward being a minor all the more problematic (link to failure of succession)
Overall was French foreign policy in the 1540s more a failure or a success?
More a failure
Exaccerbates failure of Scottish foreign policy, and meant succession was even less secure
Did not get as much as gave
Was foreign policy, factionalism, or succession a more significant failure?
Foreign policy
Impacted succession instability more than factional politics, only beats factionalism as has a more wide-spread effect (e.g. threats from abroad, finances)
