Was Wolsey's fotiegn policy an expensive failure?
(b) Study sources 1, 2 and 3 and use your knowledge. How far would you agree with the view that Henry VIII’s and Wolsey’s foreign policy was an expensive failure?
Source 3 supports the idea that Henry VIII’s foreign policy was actually quite successful; ‘Henry and Wolsey had good reason to think that they had been very successful’. Wolsey had gained immense status after the Treaty of London, when he became legatus a latere. Henry had successfully pulled off the field of cloth of gold (source 1), and was seen as peace keeper amongst the great powers since the 1518 Treaty of London. In conjunction with his successes in France in 1513, it was very easy for them to concentrate on how well they had done.
On the other hand, the field of cloth of gold was a VERY expensive event. Yes it had been successful in generating a reputation for Henry, and for him maybe that was enough to balance the fact it had cost over a year’s worth of his income. But as the Archbishop of Canterbury says in source 2; ‘little or nothing hath prevailed’. Since 1511 Henry had spent all the money he inherited from his father, plus more than a million pounds but it was obvious to everyone else that Henry’s expenses really did not match up to his success. The towns captured in 1513 were sold back to the French in 1518. Ironically, one particular success at Flodden (when the earl of Surrey defeated the Scottish invasion and the Scottish King was killed) was even played down by Henry! It was not a personal success of his, so it did not deserve as much recognition despite the fact that it meant that his nephew (a young boy) was now King of Scotland and Henry’s sister was the Regent. This was a good result for Henry. We can trust what the Archbishop says, as an ex advisor for Henry, and as a man of the cloth he is a reliable source.
Source 1 and 3 support the view that Henry’s 1513 campaign was a success; ‘Henry knew he was internationally regarded as a figure of splendid chivalric
Source 3 supports the idea that Henry VIII’s foreign policy was actually quite successful; ‘Henry and Wolsey had good reason to think that they had been very successful’. Wolsey had gained immense status after the Treaty of London, when he became legatus a latere. Henry had successfully pulled off the field of cloth of gold (source 1), and was seen as peace keeper amongst the great powers since the 1518 Treaty of London. In conjunction with his successes in France in 1513, it was very easy for them to concentrate on how well they had done.
On the other hand, the field of cloth of gold was a VERY expensive event. Yes it had been successful in generating a reputation for Henry, and for him maybe that was enough to balance the fact it had cost over a year’s worth of his income. But as the Archbishop of Canterbury says in source 2; ‘little or nothing hath prevailed’. Since 1511 Henry had spent all the money he inherited from his father, plus more than a million pounds but it was obvious to everyone else that Henry’s expenses really did not match up to his success. The towns captured in 1513 were sold back to the French in 1518. Ironically, one particular success at Flodden (when the earl of Surrey defeated the Scottish invasion and the Scottish King was killed) was even played down by Henry! It was not a personal success of his, so it did not deserve as much recognition despite the fact that it meant that his nephew (a young boy) was now King of Scotland and Henry’s sister was the Regent. This was a good result for Henry. We can trust what the Archbishop says, as an ex advisor for Henry, and as a man of the cloth he is a reliable source.
Source 1 and 3 support the view that Henry’s 1513 campaign was a success; ‘Henry knew he was internationally regarded as a figure of splendid chivalric