Factors
that
influence
foreign
policy
How does its importance modify over the
period?
Economic
At the start of Henry VII’s reign he is keen to
establish commercial treaties with the Holy
Roman Emperor (1486), similarly the
Commercial treaty with France (made just
after he has joined the Holy League) shows
the importance of such factors. The Treaty of
Medina Del Campo also involves certain
trade concessions (although its main motive
was undoubtedly dynastic). In addition to
this he was also keen to break into the
Mediterranean trade market and challenge
the power of the Hanseatic League.
When is its importance
hidden/overrated?
Comparisons that
can be made
across the period
Contrasts
that can be
made across
the period
Trade/ economic
considerations
are particularly
important for
Henry VII, and
then
Northumberland,
Mary and
Elizabeth
(collapse of
Antwerp in 1551),
however they are
not as important
for Henry VIII as
he can still trade
with Antwerp.
It is
noticeable
that the only
time in the
Tudor period
that England
pursue a
resolutely
anti Spanish
policy (under
Elizabeth),
their
importance
in terms of
trade has
decreased
(as Antwerp
has
collapsed,
good
relations
with Spain
are no longer
needed).
Is it ever used as a mask
(e.g. hide other aims)?
Henry VII is however willing to go against his
own economic interests when his dynasty is
under threat, as shown by the embargo
placed on Burgundy fro 1493-5, and 1506
(when trying to get Edmund De La Pole
back).
Henry VIII does not seem as motivated by
economic factors; however it is important to
remember that Henry VII had set up most
trade links for Henry VIII. Interestingly,
Henry’s plans to attack the Netherlands in
1527/8 would suggest that like Henry VII
economic considerations were less
important than dynastic considerations,
however the fact that he abandoned this
plan in face of opposition from
merchants/cloth producers possibly suggests
otherwise.
Although Henry VIII was able to gain certain
trade concessions in the Baltic following his
marriage to Anne of Cleves, he certainly did
not seem strongly motivated by this
particular factor.
The collapse of the Antwerp cloth market in
1551 meant that trade became on the
agenda again. Northumberland made limited
attempts to establish trade with Morocco in
1551 (discouraged by Philip of Spain) and set
up a joint stock company aimed at finding a
It would appear that Henry
VII’s motives for his
commercial treaties with
France/HRE were not
economic, but to gain
recognition (in the case of
the HRE) and show they
were no threat (in the case
of France).
Henry VII’s main motive
during Medina Del Campo
was undoubtedly dynastic
security rather than
economic gain (as shown
by the fact he did not push
harder for access to the
New World trading
market).
We perhaps underestimate
its importance under Henry
VIII, as economic interests
cause him to abandon his
plans to invade the
Netherlands (although
does the fact that he
contemplated such an
invasion suggest that such
factors were not a key
motive?)
When Henry VIII was able
to get limited trade
concessions in the Baltic,
he was not really looking
for this; he was looking for
any ally to end his
international isolation.
Do we need to be careful
of overstating the impact
of the collapse of the
Antwerp cloth market,
given that until at least 10
Henry VII, Henry
VIII and Elizabeth
are all willing to
follow courses of
action that may
damage their
economy in order
to gain
dynastic/national
security. This is
shown by Henry
VII’s embargoes
on Burgundy,
Henry VIII’s plans
to attack the
Netherlands, and
Elizabeth’s
decision to seize
the Spanish
bullion in 1568
which led to the 5
year trade
embargo with the
Spanish.
In terms of
pursuing
economic/tr
ade
interests,
Elizabeth
seems more
aggressive
than any
other
monarch
(possibly
suggesting
she attached
more
importance
to this than
any other
monarch).
Her
north east passage to China.
Similar to Northumberland, Mary looked for
new trade outlets and began trading with
Russia, setting up the Muscovy company in
1555. Mary was not however as successful in
other aspects of trade, and was let down by
Philip who guarded Spain’s trading networks
with the Americas.
Elizabeth experienced a trade boycott with
the Netherlands from 1568-73; her
willingness to negotiate the convention of
Bristol suggests she did not wish for this to
continue, however the fact that she was
willing to wait 5 years before commencing
negotiations suggests she was not unduly
worried by this.
In the 1570’s she does increasingly use trade
as a weapon, and tries to break into the
lucrative slave market in the New World (but
were her motives solely economic?)
In 1585, Philip of Spain seized all English
trade ships in Spanish waters. Could this
suggest that Elizabeth’s animosity and
aggressive policies towards Spain was
partially motivated by this? (doubtful- but a
case could still be made).
Elizabeth’s raid on Panama was largely
motivated by a desire to stop the Spanish
silver trade (although this was motivated by
a desire to reduce their national security
threat).
Financial
I feel that
a good
distinctio
n
between
economic
and
financial
Henry VII was driven by such factors as
shown by the Treaty of Redon in 1489 which
dictated that he would only send troops to
defend Brittany from France if these were
paid for by the Bretons.
Henry VII’s general desire to avoid foreign
adventures abroad were to a large extent
motivated by his desire to save money.
years Elizabeth’s reign it
was still the most popular
market for English cloth?
aggressive
economic
policy
towards
Spain pushed
them into
war with
England
(however it
can be
argued that
Elizabeth
was
motivated
out of a
desire for
national
security,
rather than
economic
gain).
Elizabeth’s delay in
opening up negotiations
with the Spanish to end the
trade embargo possibly
suggests she did not see
trade as important,
however by this time
Elizabeth had been able to
set up a replacement
market at Hamburg.
Elizabeth’s determination
to break the Spanish
monopoly over New World
trade, as shown by
Hawkins’ slave voyages (in
which he attempted to sell
slaves to the Americas), the
actions of English
privateers (in seizing
Spanish shipping), and the
1596 raid on Panama all
suggest economic
influences were key. The
main reasons for this
course of action would
however appear to be
based around national
security, as by following
this aggressive action she
was hoping to remove the
power and thus the threat
posed by Spain.
Although Henry VII was
motivated by financial
factors, as soon as France
threatened his dynastic
security by supporting
Warbeck he sent troops to
France, regardless of the
financial cost; this is
further reinforced by the
actions towards the end of
Both Henry VII
and Elizabeth
were both
motivated by
financial factors
to an extent, yet
they were willing
to abandon such
concerns when
they felt their
Northumberl
and is the
only
monarch/
protector
not to
involve
himself in a
costly war.
Does this
is that
provided
by one of
you this
yeareconomic
factors
are to do
with
trade and
generally
improving
revenue,
whereas
financial
factors
cover a
desire to
save
money.
On the other hand, he did give the
Habsburgs £342,000 in cash and jewels from
1505-9 in their conflict against the
Trastamaras, raising questions as to how
much he was driven by financial factors.
Henry VIII was certainly not influenced by
financial factors as demonstrated by his
constant war mongering and his
determination to keep hold of Tournai even
though it cost him more to garrison than it
brought in tribute! The price revolution on
the 1540s (caused by Henry’s decision to
debase the coinage in order to fund the
1544 invasion of France) again demonstrates
the lack of attention he paid to such factors.
On the other hand, financial considerations
at home forced him to abandon his plans to
send an army to France in 1525 (to take
advantage of the French defeat at the Battle
of Padua) as his attempts to raise taxation
through the Amicable Grant led to a
rebellion!
Somerset was to an extent motivated by
financial factors, as his garrisoning policy
was supposed to be cheaper than regularly
invading Scotland (it was not!).
Northumberland was strongly motivated by
financial factors, as shown by his
determination to avoid any potential foreign
policy entanglements and his unpopular
decision to sell Boulogne.
Like Henry VIII, Mary did not seem
particularly concerned by financial factors,
as shown by her involvement in the Italian
Wars, at a time where England could
scarcely afford it.
Elizabeth was initially quite cautious (e.g. she
sent just £2,000 to the Scottish Protestants
in the first instance), however this was
perhaps more due to a worry of provoking
the French than due to financial caution.
In fact, as her reign progresses, she becomes
less cautious (suggesting that she is willing to
spend money in order to defend her national
security). This is best demonstrated by her
his reign when he feared
for the security of his
dynasty.
Was Henry VIII motivated
by financial consideration
in 1525 or a fear of out and
out rebellion?
Elizabeth, like Henry VII
tries to avoid foreign
entanglements (e.g. learns
from her mistakes after
involving herself in the
French Wars of Religion),
however how much of this
is due to a desire to save
money, and how much is
due to a fear of provoking
foreign powers?
national/dynastic
security was
under threat. E.g.
although at the
end of her reign
Elizabeth’s troops
in the
Netherlands were
funded by the
Estates General ,
and in the early
stages of the
Breton Crisis
Henry VII’s troops
were funded by
the Bretons, both
were willing to
fund their own
troops when the
situation was
critical. A similar
thing can be seen
in Scotland,
where Elizabeth
was willing to
send troops in
1560 once the
French did.
suggest he
was more
motivated by
financial
factors than
anybody
else?
Henry VII
was
influenced
by financial
factors as he
wanted to
leave a large
amount o
money to his
son (fearful
as the
dynasty may
still be
vulnerable).
Henry VIII,
Somerset
and Mary
spent most
of this
getting the
country into
debt,
therefore
Elizabeth,
like Henry VII
was forced
into adopting
a more
financially
minded
foreign
policy.
decision to pay for mercenaries for the
Dutch rebels in 1578 and send English troops
in 1585 (Treaty of Nonsuch) at her own
expense. From 1589-95 she spent £1.1
million on war in the Netherlands/defending
the French Channel ports.
On the other hand, by the time of the fall of
Groningen in 1594, Elizabeth made sure that
the English troops that remained in the
Netherlands were funded by the Estates
General.
Dynastic/
national
security
Under Henry VII his desire for dynastic
security was demonstrated early on with the
Treaty of Medina Del Campo (by gaining a
betrothal between Arthur and Catherine of
Aragon he was securing support for his
dynasty from one of Europe’s great powers).
Similarly, the series of truces he negotiated
in the early years of his reign e.g. truce with
France, 3 year truce with Scotland were
motivated by a desire to focus on gaining
international recognition for his dynasty, and
stabilising his regime internally.
The importance of dynastic factors in
influencing foreign policy continue, a shown
by his actions regarding Warbeck. Henry
invades France in 1492 (note that although
he had been involved in the Breton Crisis
from 1489, he was only willing to attack
France when they directly threatened his
dynasty by supporting the pretender
Warbeck), and placed a trade embargo on
Burgundy from 1493-5 and 1506 (Suffolk)
showing how he was willing to damage trade
if it meant securing his dynasty (also shows
the importance of dynastic factors through
to the very end of his reign).
Although dynastic factors are not seemingly
as important to Henry VIII this can be
questioned, as one of his first actions is to
marry Catherine of Aragon in order to
provide him with an heir, and gain
international support for his dynasty.
However from this point onwards, dynastic
concerns seem less important (in spite of
this he did gain an agreement in 1523 that
Certainly under Henry VII
the importance of dynastic
factors are perhaps
underrated, as his
commercial treaties were
more than likely motivated
by dynastic factors. In
addition to this, as
financially strong monarch
is a more stable monarch,
therefore economic
prosperity is a way of
gaining financial security.
Henry VIII was clearly
extremely strongly
motivated by personal
glory in the first part of his
reign, although it is
important to remember
that he was able to do this
as he felt he had secured
his dynasty through
marrying Catherine (notice
as well that even by 1523
he is trying to
protect/secure his
marriage by marrying his
daughter to Charles V.
On the other hand Henry
abandoned his plans to
invade the Netherlands in
1527/8 fearful of the
economic effects; does this
question the importance of
dynastic concerns?
All monarchs (and
Somerset, but not
Northumberland)
all take moves early
on to secure their
dynasty. Henry VII
pursues truces/
Medina Del Campo,
Henry VIII marries C
of A, Somerset tries
to secure the
marriage of Edward
and Mary Queen of
Scots through the
garrisoning policy,
and Elizabeth tries
to reduce the
power of Mary
Queen of Scots
through
involvement in
both French and
Scottish politics
(link with Henry VII
during Warbeck’s
Rebellion).
Henry VII and
Elizabeth (and
possibly Henry VIII)
are willing to take
actions which may
damage the
economy in order
to safeguard their
dynastic interests.
All monarchs and
protectors (except
Northumberland
Whereas
Henry VII
and Elizabeth
(and possibly
Somerset)
faced
dynastic
rivals that
needed
dealing with
(Simnel,
Warbeck and
Mary Queen
of Scots),
Mary I and
Henry VIII
did not.
Elizabeth and
Edward are
unique in
that they are
the only two
monarchs to
give no
consideratio
n to the
need to
secure an
heir (could it
be argued
that
Elizabeth’s
Treaty of
Friendship
with James
VI in 1586 in
his daughter and only child Mary would
marry Charles V in an attempt to secure his
dynasty, however Charles repudiated this in
1525) as shown by his pursuit of glory in
France (1512-13, 1522-3).
By 1527 however, Henry VIII became far
more motivated by dynastic factors as he
only had one female heir, hence his
determination to obtain a divorce. The fact
that he contemplated an invasion of the
Netherlands and funded a French army
against the Spanish (1527) shows the
importance of dynastic motives at this point
as he was willing to turn against his
traditional ally, and risk losing trade with the
Netherlands and Antwerp. Similarly the
decision to divorce Catherine and break with
Rome in 1533 (which greatly threatened his
national security) shows just how seriously
he now took dynastic security.
Similarly his aggressive policy towards
Scotland in the 1540s (such as the invasion
in 1542 and the Rough Wooing) which came
at great financial cost (showing how dynastic
factors were far more important than
financial factors) was aimed at securing his
dynasty by marrying his son Edward to Mary
Queen of Scots (Treaty of Greenwich), thus
removing Mary as a major rival of Edwards.
It is interesting how the 1544 invasion of
France should be viewed, does it suggest
that Henry was not that interested by
dynastic factors? (the Scottish parliament
had rejected the Treaty of Greenwich,
therefore surely he should be focussing on
Scotland rather than France), or was Henry
trying to defeat France in order to subdue
the Scots and force them to agree to her
demands?
Such dynastic factors were the most pressing
concern faced by Protector Somerset, whose
invasion of Scotland in 1547 and garrisoning
policy was an attempt to secure the
marriage first touted by Henry VIII
Surprisingly such factors did not seem to
influence Northumberland as much, who
Perhaps his invasion of
France in 1544 was
motivated by dynastic
factors (stop them
supporting the Scots), and
therefore increase the
chance of Henry forcing
Mary Queen of Scots to
marry Edward and thus
remove the major threat to
his dynasty. Alternatively,
does this suggest that glory
was more important?
Were Elizabeth’s aggressive
economic policies towards
Spain/defence of the
Netherlands motivated by
solely economic factors, or
was her main motive to
safeguard national and
dynastic security?
Could it be suggested that
her aid to the Protestants
during the Scottish Civil
War, and her aid to the
Huguenots during the
French Wars of Religion
shows that she was
motivated more by
religious factors?
By the end of her reign,
could it be argued that she
was more motivated by
personal factors (e.g. a
fanatical hatred of Philip)
rather than national
security/dynastic factors?
and maybe not
Mary) are willing to
risk/declare war to
secure their
dynasties 1492,
1527, 1547 (Battle
of Pinkie) 1562.
Was Mary’s
decision to fight the
French in 57 an
attempt to secure
her dynasty, or
were there other
motives?
k
a strange
way secured
her an heir?
It is
noticeable
that Henry
VIII’s
desperate
attempts for
an heir post
1527 puts
England’s
national
security
under more
threat than
ever before
(does this
mean that he
takes it more
seriously
than
anybody
else?)
Why does
Protector
Somerset
not seem
particularly
concerned
by dynastic
factors?
abandoned the garrisons in Scotland given
their expense (he was far more motivated by
financial factors).
Although Mary herself does not seem to be
strongly influenced by dynastic factors, her
early marriage to Philip of Spain was both an
attempt to establish a dynasty and gain
international support/protection for this.
Such an alliance would also provide England
with protection from France (who had
declared war on England in 1549 under
Somerset).
Elizabeth is able to help national security to
some extent at Cateau Cambresis by getting
the French to pull down their garrison at
Eyemouth.
Her willingness to sign the 1560 Treaty of
Edinburgh (committing England to
withdrawing troops from Scotland provided
the French followed suit) was also strongly
motivated by dynastic factors/national
security as it both reduced the national
security threat from French troops stationed
in Scotland, and reduced the danger of Mary
Queen of Scots.
Her decision to involve herself in the French
Wars of Religion (1562) is seemingly
motivated by dynastic factors as it may
reduce the power of the Guise (supporters
of her main dynastic rival Mary Queen of
Scots). Similarly the aid she gives to the
Scottish Protestant rebels in 1560 (initially
money and then troops when the French get
involved) was possibly motivated by dynastic
as well as religious factors (victory fro the
Protestants would reduce the challenge
posed by Mary Queen of Scots).
The 1572 Treaty of Blois also demonstrates
Elizabeth’s determination to safeguard her
dynastic security, with the French agreeing
to no longer support Mary Queen of Scots.
Similarly, her actions in Scotland, helping
Regent Morton capture Edinburgh Castle in
1572 was motivated by dynastic/national
security factors, as it made sense to keep a
Protestant Protector on the throne (as they
were anti Mary Queen of Scots and would
resist foreign involvement).
Elizabeth’s increased aggression towards
Spain in the late 1560’s following the
outbreak of the Dutch Revolt (e.g. seizure of
the Spanish bullion, encouraging privateers
to attack Spanish shipping) was strongly
motivated by a desire to maintain national
security by keeping the Spanish out of the
Netherlands. This continued with the
sending of mercenaries in 1578 and more
significantly with the Treaty of Nonsuch in
1585 which committed English troops to the
protection of the Netherlands.
Elizabeth is willing to continue to anger the
Spanish in order to maintain
dynastic/national security. She executes
Mary Queen of Scots in 1587, launches the
raid on Cadiz and Panama in 1596 (both
aimed at reducing the threat from Spain)
and sends 20,000 troops to help France
safeguard the channel ports from 1489-94.
The 1586 Treaty of Friendship with Scotland
is extremely important at a dynastic level as
this (unofficially at least) would appear to
guarantee that James VI of Scotland would
succeed her upon her death.
Religious
factors
Before the break from Rome under Henry
VIII religious factors were not a motive in
foreign policy, however such factors became
important as Henry VIII began to look for a
divorce. In 1532 for example Henry signed a
defensive alliance with the French in the
hope that they would follow him and break
from Rome.
After the break from Rome in 1533 Henry
becomes isolated within Europe, and by
1538 it looks like Spain and France are
planning to launch a crusade against him. By
the time he starts to look for a 4th wife, he is
forced to look for a Protestant, hence the
marriage to Anne of Cleves (this religious
alliance with the Duke of Cleves was strongly
Although the marriage to
Anne of Cleves was to an
extent motivated by
religion, it was also
motivated out of a desire
for national/dynastic
security; given England’s
isolation, Henry could not
afford to be picky as t his
choice of ally!
Although all
monarchs post
Henry VII seem
motivated by
religious factors
on the surface,
close
investigation
suggests
differently.
After the 1536 Pilgrimage
of Grace, Henry VIII brings
in the Catholic 6 Articles
(restore certain elements
of Catholicism); this made
cooperation with Spain
It would appear
that Somerset
and ELizabeth
were more
strongly
motivated by this
Religious
factors
played no
role in
influencing
foreign
policy until
1527
(contrast
Henry VII
with later
monarchs/
protectors.
Elizabeth
perhaps
seems more
pushed for by Cromwell, who was keen for a
Protestant German Alliance).
more palatable to the
Spanish.
However the long term importance of
religion as a foreign policy motive should not
be overestimated under Henry VIII, given the
fact that by 1544 the Spanish were willing to
side with him once more against the French.
Although Elizabeth seems
to be strongly motivated by
religious factors, closer
investigation suggests
there were other more
pressing motives which are
masked by the apparent
importance of religion.
Although war is declared on the Scottish
under Edward (the French also declare war
on Edward), and on the French by Mary,
neither were motivated by religious factors.
Edward (or Somerset) was motivated by
dynastic factors, with Mary motivated by
more personal factors.
than anybody
else, Elizabeth
gave aid to
Protestant rebels
in Scotland,
France and the
Netherlands, and
one of Somerset’s
main motives
behind
establishing
garrisons in
Scotland was to
protect the
Protestant
Scottish nobles.
motivated by
religion than
anybody
else, as she
actually gives
aid to the
Protestant
Dutch, the
Huguenots
and the
Protestant
Scots. Henry
VIII never
gives aid to
Protestant
countries
(and is only
married to
Anne of
Cleves for 6
months!).
Although
Somerset
introduces
the
garrisoning
policy in
Scotland to
help protect
Protestantis
m, his
involvement
is not quite
at the same
level as
Elizabeth.
Henry VII is
strongly
influenced by
marriage (he goes
against neither
Spain nor
Henry VII’s
foreign
policies were
largely
influenced
by marriage
Mary’s determination to marry Philip (a
staunch Catholic) does suggest she was
strongly motivated by religious factors (she
could have married an English Protestant in
order to avoid provoking unrest internally).
On the surface, Elizabeth would seem more
driven by religious factors (it was her who
properly established the Protestant Church
in England); she helped the Protestants in
Scotland in their rebellion from 1559-60,
helped the Huguenots in 1562
(Throckmorton, one of Elizabeth’s
councillors was strongly motivated by
religion here, but Elizabeth was not) and
gave increased amounts of aid to the Dutch.
On the other hand, her motives here were
not simply religious; her major motive for
helping such groups was the desire for
national/dynastic security.
Between 1589-94 sent 20,000 troops to
protect France (this was when Henry IV was
still Protestant- he switched to Catholicism
in 1594!)
Marriage
Marriage to foreigners is an important
foreign policy motive to Henry. Arthur is
betrothed to Catherine of Aragon in 1589marry 1501. This begins a period of
friendship that save for minor interruptions
(e.g. the last few years of Henry VII’s reign,
The important thing to
remember when looking at
marriage agreements is
their purpose; marriage
agreements were made to
either cement or help
1527, and 1533-40) that continues until the
start of Elizabeth’s reign.
Margaret marries James IV of Scotland in
1503 (ratifying the 1502 Treaty of Ayton),
however this does not lead to a long term
change in direction of foreign policy as the
improved relations flounder under Henry VIII
(notice however that in this instance, Henry
VII is using marriage to strengthen the good
relationship that was established between
the two nations through the 1497 Truce of
Ayton).
Henry VIII clearly attached great importance
to marriage, marrying Catherine of Aragon in
1509. He also married his sister Mary to
Louis XII of France in 1514 (he died 1515),
and then betrothed his daughter Mary to
Charles V in 1523 (Charles renounced this in
1525). Although Henrys’ marriage to
Catherine ensured good relations with Spain,
these cooled by 1527 and ended in 1533
(although he was able to re establish these).
Similarly the betrothal/ marriage of his sister
and daughter did little to significantly alter
the direction of English foreign policy.
In later years he tried to secure the marriage
of his son Edward to Mary Queen of Scots
through the 1543 Treaty of Greenwich (to
secure his dynasty). This caused him to
adjust his foreign policy and saw him
become increasingly involved in Scotland, as
demonstrated by the Rough Wooing. This
was similarly continued by Somerset as
demonstrated by his garrisoning policy.
Henry marries Anne of Cleves in 1540
(however this is motivated by his desire to
end his isolation in Europe). It has virtually
no effect on future foreign policy, as the
changing European situation means he is no
longer isolated by late 1540, hence the
annulment (although he did keep positive
trading relations with Cleves).
Mary’s direction course of foreign policy was
very much influenced by marriage, as her
decision to get involved in the Italian Wars
on the side of Spain can be traced to her
create a dynasty, therefore
the two factors are
extremely closely linked.
Medina Del Campo was
more than just a marriage
agreement; Henry VII laid
down a statement that
Spain would be England’s
main ally for the next 70
years!
A marriage agreement
(except when Henry VII
marries Margaret to James,
and Henry VIII tries
marrying Edward to Mary
Queen of Scots) is
essentially choosing an ally
to support England’s
national security/a
monarch’s dynastic
security. Therefore
monarchs must be willing
to overturn this if a better
offer from a stronger
power comes along e.g. in
1523 Henry betroths his
daughter Mary to Charles
V as he is stronger than
the Dauphin who she had
previously been betrothed
to.
Marriage agreements can
still be important to
Elizabeth, even though she
does not marry!
Scotland
following the
marriage
agreements), this
can be compared
to Mary (however
she did only rule
very briefly!).
Even Henry VIII
(with the possible
exception of the
Treaty of the
More in 1525)
generally follows
a Pro Spanish
foreign policy up
until 1527.
All monarchs
attach great
importance to
marriage except
Elizabeth (look
generally at how
they all make
marriage
arrangement for
themselves or
their children
very early),
however this is
probably due to
the dynastic
benefits that this
brings. Even
Elizabeth is open
to marriage
negotiations with
Philip II in the first
few years of her
reign, skilfully
using this to
reduce the
potential for a
French invasion.
Like Henry VIII,
Elizabeth is
willing to turn
against the
Spanish (however
agreements
(he only
went against
Spain at the
end of his
reign after
Arthur had
died), yet
Henry VIII
had little
respect for
previous
marriage
agreements
as shown by
his attitude
towards
Scotland, his
annulment
of the
marriage to
Anne of
Cleves and
his
determinatio
n to divorce
Catherine
(thus
breaking
from Rome).
Unlike other
monarchs,
Henry VIII
was not
bound by
marriages;
he went
against the
Spanish in
1527 and
1533 when
he wanted a
divorce, and
annulled his
marriage
with Anne of
Cleves when
it stood in
the way of
European
marriage to Philip II of Spain.
Although Elizabeth did not marry (meaning
that she did not have the ulterior motive of
gaining a dynasty through marriage), she did
use marriage negotiations particularly well.
The best examples of this are her
negotiations with the Duke of Anjou in 1571
and 1578. The 1571 negotiations played a
crucial role in helping her negotiate the
Treaty of Blois, and the 1578 negotiations
made her much less suspicious of France
(this culminated with her sending troops to
help protect the French Channel ports in
1589).
unlike Henry she
was never
actually married
to a Spaniard!)
integration
in 1540.
Ultimately, all
monarchs had
complete control
over their
direction of
foreign policy,
therefore
ultimately all
could ignore the
views of other
political figures.
It would
seem that
Mary I gave
less
attention to
political
factors than
other
monarchs.
Although her
decision to
marry Philip
split the
council (e.g.
Paget was
pro, but
Gardiner was
anti), the
decision to
go to war
with France
was opposed
by all in the
council. By
badly
misreading
the political
Similarly, early in her reign she skilfully
conducted marriage negotiations with Philip
of Spain in order to secure his support when
she was most vulnerable post Treaty of
Cateau Cambresis.
Political
NB if you are
asked about
the influence
of political
factors, I
would
suggest that
national/
dynastic
security as
well as trade
agreements
and marriage
alliances are
all political
factors,
whereas
financial/
religious
factors are
not.
The crucial
thing is that
in your intro/
early on you
define what
a political
factor
is/isn’t.
As national/
dynastic
security and
marriage
agreements
have already
Henry VII was forced to abandon his plans to
invade Scotland in 1497 in face of the
Cornish Rebellion; after the rebellion he
could not risk such a move.
The threat of invasion was
sufficient for James IV to
stop supporting Warbeck,
therefore political factors
did not really have much of
Similarly, Henry VIII had to abandon his plans an effect in determining
to attack France in 1525 after resistance to
foreign policy.
the Amicable Grant. Does his decision not to
attack the Netherlands in 1527/8 show he
Was Henry VIII more
was partially influenced by political factors,
influenced by economic
as he was motivated by a desire not to
rather than political
isolate the politically and economically
factors? It is impossible to
important merchants?
fight a war without money
(however he does not start
In his first few years, Henry VIII was
debasing the coinage until
constrained by conservative Councillors e.g.
the 1540s- possibly
Foxe, who kept the Privy Seal and were able countering this claim).
to prevent him from following an over
aggressive foreign policy. By the time Henry
Although Henry VIII was
was 21 however he took over all aspects of
clearly influenced by
government, making it difficult to exert any
political figures such as
real control over him.
Cromwell to an extent, the
fact that he was willing to
Henry VIII was generally reluctant to listen to execute Cromwell in 1540
others, however the influence of Cromwell
shows he had no emotional
saw him agree to the marriage with Anne of attachment to such figures;
Cleves in 1540 (yet later that year he had
surely this suggests he
Henry VII and
Henry VIII did not
have to worry as
much about
isolating political
figures, therefore
were generally
not held hostage
by ministers (in
the way that
Elizabeth could at
times be by
Cecil).
All monarchs had
been
covered
I will look at
the
importance
of political
pressure
from either
ministers
within
government/
courtiers as
well as other
internal
political
consideratio
ns.
Cromwell executed). On the other hand,
Cromwell, as a religious reformer had long
being keen for a Protestant alliance, the fact
that one was only agreed briefly in 1540
(and that the marriage lasted just 6 months)
raises questions as to how much such factors
motivated Henry.
It could be said his decision to go to war with
France in 1544 was partially motivated by
pressure from younger courtiers, however
Henry had never previously needed much of
an excuse to attack France!
After the fall of Somerset in 1549,
Northumberland’s decision to avoid any real
foreign policy entanglement can be seen as a
response to the dangerous political situation
at the time (1549 was the “Year of
Rebellion”- Kett’s Rebellion, the Western
Rebellion and Anti enclosure riots that swept
the country).
Mary did not seem particularly motivated by
political factors; in fact her lack of awareness
of the political implications of her choice of
marriage policy led to the outbreak of
Wyatt’s Rebellion in 1554!
Elizabeth was at times influenced heavily by
certain councillors, most notably Cecil. In
1560 she only agreed to send troops to
Scotland when he threatened to resign if she
refused.
In 1562 he three main councillors (Dudley,
Cecil and Throckmorton) were all keen for
involvement in the French Wars of Religion,
however it would appear that Elizabeth was
as well and was not “bullied” into it by them.
Elizabeth’s later actions, e.g. her refusal to
escalate her aid to the Dutch, and her refusal
to take the title of protector of Holland and
Zeeland, and her refusal to set up a base at
Cadiz in 1596 as demanded by Essex
demonstrated that she would not be
influenced by politicians (on the other hand,
Cecil, her chief advisor had supported
Elizabeth’s increased caution after 1562).
would not be excessively
influenced by them.
Elizabeth seems heavily
motivated by Cecil, yet she
appears to not have
attached particularly much
importance to the views of
other more “adventurous”
councillors, most notably
Dudley and Essex.
to think about the
effects that their
policies would
have on their own
internal political
stability (with the
exception of
Mary who angers
the people of
England with her
marriage to
Philip, and
Somerset who
launches his
expensive
campaign in
Scotland). Henry
VII and VIII back
down at points
(1497, 1525,
1527), and
Elizabeth’s use of
privateers to raise
money was
designed to
mitigate avoid
angering the
people of England
and thus
upsetting her
political security
(only 4 people
join the 1596
Oxfordshire rising
showing some
success!)
situation she
provoked
serious
problems as
shown by
Wyatt’s
Rebellion.
On the other
hand,
councillors
felt they had
more right to
be consulted
when the
monarch was
a queen,
meaning that
there was
more of an
expectation
that Mary/
Elizabeth
should
consult
them.
It is
noticeable
that
Elizabeth
seems more
concerned
by political
factors than
other
monarchs; is
this because
more than
any other
monarch she
realises the
vulnerability
of her
position?
Elizabeth’s determination to fund her
foreign policy through privateering also
shows an awareness of political factors, as
she did not want to risk creating political
unrest, as Henry VIII Somerset and Mary had
done (the price revolution occurred at the
end of Henry VIII reign, continuing through
to Mary’s reign as they had funded
aggressive foreign policy by debasing the
coinage, leading to inflation).
Personal
factors
This is
another
tricky one. I
would say
that certain
factors e.g.
national/
dynastic
security are
motives for
all
monarchs/
protectors,
whereas
“personal
factors” are
motives
that are
relevant
more to
that
person.
Under Henry VII he is strongly motivated by
a desire to save money (financial motives), a
desire to further trade (economic motives),
safeguard his dynasty and avoid foreign
entanglements wherever possible (e.g. he
only joins the Holy League on the premise
that he will not be bound for war with
France). His desire to avoid foreign
entanglements (although he does support
Brittany against France, suggesting he would
go against this if his national security was
threatened) demonstrates the importance of
“personal factors”, and it could also be said
the extent to which he was determined to
protect his dynasty became a “personal
factor”. Was his commitment to further
trade/protect his finances a “personal
factor”, or were these factors common to all
other monarchs?
Henry VIII is certainly motivated by a desire
for personal glory in a way that no other
monarch is, as shown by his invasions of
France in 1512 and 1522. Although it could
be argued his attack on them in 1544 was
partially to gain dynastic security for his son
(French support for the Scots had
encouraged the Scots to reject the 1543
Treaty of Greenwich), it is possible to refute
this suggestion.
By 1527 Henry VIII becomes increasingly
driven by dynastic factors (possibly more so
than any monarch), although it is hard to see
this as a personal factor, as it applied to
every monarch.
Somerset was driven strongly by events in
Scotland, most notably a desire to secure a
marriage between Edward and Mary Queen
Is it fair/valid to look at the
idea of “personal
motives”? Each monarch
faced unique challenges
(most notably Henry VII as
founder of the dynasty),
therefore often their
motives were not personal
as such, but a response to
the unique position that
they found themselves in.
In addition to this, almost
all had to be prepared to
abandon “personal
preferences” when
necessary; Henry VII had to
go into France in 1492,
Henry VIII had to abandon
his plans for an invasion of
France in 1525 following
the resistance to the
Amicable Grant, Elizabeth
had to send troops to aid
the Protestant Scots in
1560 when the French got
involved.
Perhaps the best way to
look at the importance of
personal motives is to look
at the policies carried out
by particular monarchs at
the very start of their
reigns. After a few years,
they are often forced to
abandon their “personal
aims”, as they are forced to
react to constantly
changing political
Were Mary and
Elizabeth both
motivated by
personal glory to
an extent (like
Henry VIII). Mary
possibly hoped to
regain Boulogne
when involving
herself in the
Italian Wars, and
Elizabeth hoped
to regain Calais
through
supporting the
Huguenots (or
was this partly
national security
as Calais was
useful
defensively)?
Both Henry VII
and Elizabeth are
keen to avoid
spending money
unnecessarily,
and eager to
prevent foreign
policy
entanglements
(Elizabeth is after
1562), yet they
are willing to
involve
themselves in
European affairs
when necessary,
showing that
national/dynastic
Look how
the nature of
“personal
factors”
change.
Under Henry
VII and
Elizabeth
their
personal
aims are
characterise
d more by
caution, yet
under Mary
and Henry
VIII they are
characterise
d possibly
more by
glory/
aggression.
Why may
this be the
case?
Mary I was
the only
monarch
whose
foreign
policy seems
motivated by
a desire to
please her
spouse, and
possibly
explains why
Elizabeth
was
of Scots. Whilst this was not perhaps the
most important priority for Henry VIII at the
end of his reign (as shown by his invasion of
France in 1544), Somerset devoted the
majority of his time and attention to
achieving this. In contrast, Northumberland
opted to avoid foreign policy entanglements
wherever possible.
Mary I was strongly motivated by a desire to
please her husband Philip II, entering the
Italian Wars in 1557 against the French.
Elizabeth was motivated by an overriding
caution, as demonstrated by her reluctance
to give aid to the Protestant Scots 1559-60,
her initial caution to give excessive aid to the
Dutch rebels, and her decision to use
privateers, rather than the royal navy to
attack Spanish shipping.
After the launching of the Spanish Armada,
she does however become more driven by
hate, as seen by her more aggressive policy
towards the Spanish (most notably Philip II)
post 1588. It is noticeable that she relaxes
her aggressive policy to Spain somewhat
when Philip II dies and is replaced by Philip
III, suggesting she was partially motivated by
personal hatred.
developments within
Europe. Notice how in
Elizabeth’s early stages she
is cautious, before
becoming more aggressive
as Spain become more of a
threat.
security takes
priority.
reluctant to
marry.
With the possible
exception of
Mary/ protectors,
all monarchs have
to be willing to
abandon their
“personal aims”
at times.
Henry VII is
quite
interesting,
as he has to
get involved
in European
affairs quite
early on to
secure
national/
dynastic
security,
however
having done
this he can
than keep
out of
entanglemen
ts more in
the mid/later
part of his
reign, as was
his intention.