Henry’s Final Years 1540-7

Final Years Undermined by Faction?

• Yes: Henry as paranoid nutter.– Distinct groups in court with clear(ish) agendas and antagonism towards

each other.– Henry’s last speech to parliament demonstrates an awareness of different

groups speaking against each other: • (‘I see and hear daily that you of the clergy preach against each other without

charity or discretion. Some are too stiff in their old ‘Mumpsimus’, others are are too busy and curious in their new ‘Sumpsimus’.’)

– Henry was paranoid and regarded everyone with suspicion.– Lack of clear agenda in religion

• Conservative: King’s Book (1543), Act for the Advancement of True Religion (1543), Execution of Anne Askew (1546);

• Reformed: 1544 Litany; 1545 Primer (religious instructions for schools); dissolution of the Chantries 1547.

– Norfolk and Surrey attempting to challenge the authority of the king…– Paget and Denny acquisition of the Dry Stamp and increasing influence.

Final Years Undermined by Faction?

No – Henry is in control of policy• Henry was playing one faction off against the other (dominating

faction – his ultimate goal was to protect the Supremacy and Edward during the minority (he didn’t trust the Howards?) and therefore favoured the reformers at the end– BUT he also wanted to keep the doctrine of the church Catholic and

attempted to keep Conservatives in the government in order to protect Catholic doctrine.

• The dominant occupation during this period was foreign policy. – Defeat of Scots– Resumption of alliance with Charles V– War on two fronts– Financial implications

Final Years Undermined by Faction?

• Bit of both….– Henry was in control for most of this period - and dominating faction –

his ultimate goal was to protect the Supremacy and Edward during the minority (he didn’t trust the Howards?) and therefore favoured the reformers at the end

– BUT he also wanted to keep the doctrine of the church Catholic and attempted to keep Conservatives in the government in order to protect Catholic doctrine.

• BUT by the end he was too ill and was unable to prevent an almost complete ascendency by the reformers.

• Third and final Act of Succession restored Mary and Elizabeth may reflect different influences but more likely recognition that Henry was trying to hedge his bets and ensure the survival of the dynasty.

Henry’s Foreign Policy

• Firstly the reasons behind it (12 mark questions)…– Henry undoubtedly saw glory on the battlefield as the

most important goal for a king – apart from providing an heir.

– Finally able to take up where he left off at the beginning of the 1520s after the divorce, the pilgrimage of Grace, and the Truce of Nice;

– He went to war with France because those were England’s old enemy and Henry wanted to emulate Henry V and win back former English lands;

Why war with Scots?– He went to war with Scotland to hamper the ‘auld alliance’ and

‘close the back door’ against the Scots, allied to France through the influence of the Earl of Arran James Hamilton, and the Cardinal-Archbishop David Beaton

– James V had failed to turn up in York in 1541– The English victory at Solway Moss Nov. 1542 and the death of

James V were unexpected, so the English tried to press home the advantage.

– The war went on for so long because Henry tried to do it cheaply without a major military presence.

– The Scots repudiated the Treaty of Greenwich of 1543 and Henry wanted to achieve the marriage of Edward Mary Queen of Scots by ‘rough wooing’ 1544-5

Was it a complete failure?

• Yes– Only Boulogne (allowed to keep for 8 years!) and a resumption

of the French pension first gained by Edward IV in 1475 was gained.

– Flagship Mary Rose sunk in the Solent with 500 men in 1545– Costs were huge - £130,000 annual maintenance of Boulogne

defences – equal to a years ordinary crown income before the dissolution.

– Total cost of the campaign - £1 million– Costs forced Henry to introduce forced loans, to sell monastic

lands quickly, giving short term gains in return for giving up the crown’s long-term independence. In future it would be reliant on Parliament.

Was it a complete failure?

• No– Henry would have considered it a success because

it demonstrated that England were a major player in world affairs once again.

– Charles V took England seriously as an ally– It may have been part of his scheme for securing

the future of the Tudor dynasty….

Conclusions?

• Last years a combination of religious faction, securing the succession and foreign policy…

• Henry was in control of policy and was able to divide and rule until the final year…

• Foreign policy was disastrous in the long term but may have been seen as a success in the short term.