Assess the importance of political factors as a motive of Tudor foreign policy
This is a rather standard style question, and the only really challenging thing here is defining what is
and isn’t political. Having looked at previous marks schemes/examiners comments, I would suggest
that political factors broadly incorporate any policy that is introduced in order to protect/safeguard
dynastic or national security.
I would suggest that religious factors were not political factors, and that economic factors were a
mixture of both, as strong finances were needed in order to maintain political security. I would
presume that when answering such a question you would conclude that political factors were
incredibly important with only several exceptions e.g. the first half of Henry VIII’s reign and maybe
parts of Mary I’s reign. Often factors that may not be considered to be political influenced foreign
policy, however in many cases these were introduced to help maintain political security.
Assess the importance of personal factors in shaping Tudor foreign policy
I do think that this is quit a difficult question, as it involves working out what a “personal factor” (a
fairly ambiguous term) is, and what differentiates it from “other factors”.
General considerations
In many respects, I would say that each monarch to an extent is motivated by personal factors.
Although issues of dynastic and national security apply to all, different monarchs choose to focus on
different things. Although this is most apparent under Henry VIII and Mary (the desire for glory
through conquest and the desire for close links with Spain) it is also possible to observe the
importance of personal factors at a lesser level. E.g. how far do personal factors affect methods of
gaining national/dynastic security for example? It is also interesting to consider at which points in
monarchs reigns personal factors become important.
Caution
Henry VII is generally notable for his caution, as demonstrated by the Breton Crisis in 1989 where he
desperately tried to avoid sending troops, attempting to mediate, before sending volunteers. It was
only when the situation became extremely precarious for Breton security that he sent 6,000 troops
through the Treaty of Redon. This is also evident under Elizabeth in the first part of her reign (1559),
when following the Protestant rebellion in Scotland, she offered just £2,000 in aid to the rebels.
Although both monarchs were by nature rather cautious, it is difficult to see personal factors as
being particularly important in these two instances, as they were being driven more by a fear of
provoking a more dangerous enemy, as in both cases, giving further aid to the rebels would have
increased the animosity felt by France and thus the level of threat posed. Rather than personal
factors shaping their cautious policy it was the desire to protect national and dynastic security,
something particularly vulnerable at the start of a reign that influenced such a foreign policy choice.
This is further demonstrated under Northumberland. Although he has a reputation as a financially
cautious monarch, avoiding foreign policy entanglements to allow him to sort out England’s dismal
finances, and selling Boulogne back to do so, his hand was forced by the precarious situation he
found England in- his personal aims were of little motive.
Status and hatred
The most obvious example of a monarch driven by personal factors is undoubtedly Henry VIII. Whilst
his final invasion of France in 1544 was partly an attempt to gain dynastic security by stopping
French support for the Scots (who continued to resist the betrothal between Mary Queen of Scots
and Edward), his early invasions of France were motivated by his desire for conquest, as shown by
his determination to keep the ancient town of Tournai, even though it cost more to garrison than it
paid in tribute. Henry was not however unique in being influenced at a personal level by a desire for
status, as demonstrated by his first daughter Mary, whose disastrous decision to join the Italian
Wars in 1557 against the French was strongly influenced by a desire to impress both the Spanish,
and her own people at a domestic level. This desire for glory is certainly not an accusation that can
be levied at many other Tudor monarchs; Henry VII’s willingness to agree to the Treaty of Etaples in
1492 without fighting a battle demonstrates the lack of concern he attached to gaining status, as did
Somerset’s garrisoning policy in Scotland in the late 1540s which was designed to be practical (help
protect the Pro English nobles within Scotland) without being spectacular.
A further personal motive tying in with this is the notion of hatred between particular monarchs, a
personal factor evident under both Henry VIII and Elizabeth that influenced both of their foreign
policies at times. Although Henry VIII needed little encouragement to attack France, he had a great
dislike of Francis I, King of France from 1515-47 whom he saw as a rival as both wanted to be seen as
glamorous renaissance monarchs, a key motive behind his invasion of France in 1522, given that it
served little political purpose. Although his invasion of Scotland in 1542 did have a dynastic purpose
it was not solely motivated by such factors, but also out of a desire for revenge (glory could not
however be gained fighting against Scotland), as James had failed to turn up at York to meet Henry
in 1540 as arranged. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, Elizabeth grew to hate Philip II
of Spain possibly more than Henry hated either Francis I or James V. This is demonstrated by the fact
that she continued to raid Spanish shipping and trade outlets, as shown by the attempted seizure of
Panama in 1596, in spite of the fact that the Spanish threat in the Netherlands 9and thus to English
national security) had disappeared following their defeat at Groningen in 1594.
Are there any other “personal” factors that you could look at?
Look at timings
Having determined what a personal factor is/isn’t, it would seem that Henry VIII and Mary were
influenced by personal factors, as was Elizabeth to a lesser extent. Interestingly, both of these
monarchs were relatively secure, which allowed them to pursue more aggressive policies focussed
around personal issues (contrast this with other monarchs). When Henry VIII inherited the throne in
1509 the Yorkist threat had disappeared, and his lack of any real dynastic rival allowed him to pursue
aggressive policies as characterised by his invasions of France in 1512 and 1523. Although Mary’s
position was not quite as secure, her marriage to Philip certainly helped guarantee England’s
national security, which in turn made an aggressive policy against the French possible as shown in
1557. The situation is however slightly different under Elizabeth, as she steps up attacks on the
Spanish after 1588, even though England are not safe from Spanish invasion via the Netherlands
until the defeat of the Spanish at Groningen in 1594.
What other factors can you look at?