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. Furthermore, as he
did not have the same number of trade
outlets as Henry VII, he was tied into
maintaining positive relations with the
Netherlands.
Although Henry VIII was able to gain
certain trade concessions in the Baltic
following his marriage to Anne of Cleves
(e.g. with the government of Lubeck), he
certainly did not seem strongly motivated
by this particular factor.
It could be suggested 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
in 1492).
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?)- in some ways
Henry VIII’s lack of interest
and lack of alternative
outlets made the support
of the Netherlands even
more important!
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.
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/
trade
interests,
Elizabeth
seems more
aggressive
than any
other
monarch
(possibly
suggesting
she attached
more
importance
to this than
any other
monarch).
Her
The collapse of the Antwerp cloth market
in 1550 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 north east passage to
China. The collapse of Antwerp can go
some way to understanding decreased
relations with Spain in the second part of
the Tudor period.
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.
By the late 1560s, Elizabeth had moved
most English trade to Hamburg as a
replacement for Antwerp.
Elizabeth experienced a trade boycott
with Spain 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. It would however seem that her
motives were to limit the power of Spain
through economic means.
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 in 1596 was
largely motivated by a desire to stop the
Do we need to be careful
of overstating the impact
of the collapse of the
Antwerp cloth market,
given that until at least 10
years into Elizabeth’s reign
it was still the most
popular market for English
cloth?
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.
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).
Spanish silver trade (although this was
motivated by a desire to reduce their
national security threat).
Financial
I feel that a
good
distinction
between
economic
and financial
is that
economic
factors are
to do with
trade and
the general
economy,
whereas
financial
factors
cover a
desire to
save the
king’s
money/
raise his
personal
revenue
through
pensions
etc.
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.
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. He
spent £1 million from 1512-14 and £2
million from 1542-6 on wars abroad.
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
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
his reign when he feared
for the security of his
dynasty.
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?
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
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.
Northumberl
and is the
only
monarch/
protector
not to
involve
himself in a
costly war.
Does this
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 of
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
by financial factors, as shown by his
determination to avoid any potential
foreign policy entanglements and his
unpopular decision to sell Boulogne.
was forced
into adopting
a more
financially
minded
foreign
policy.
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 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
Could also
Catherine of Aragon he was securing
go under the support for his dynasty from one of
umbrella of
Europe’s great powers). Similarly, the
political
series of truces he negotiated in the early
factors
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.
Certainly under Henry VII
the importance of
dynastic/ national security
factors are perhaps
underrated, as his
commercial treaties were
more than likely motivated
by these factors. In
addition to this, as
financially strong monarch
is a more stable monarch,
therefore economic
prosperity is a way of
gaining financial security.
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
Catherine of
Aragon, Somerset
tries to secure the
marriage of Edward
and Mary Queen of
Scots through the
garrisoning policy,
Whereas
Henry VII
and Elizabeth
(and possibly
Somerset/
Northumberl
and) faced
dynastic
rivals that
needed
dealing with
(Simnel,
Warbeck and
Mary Queen
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 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- he was willing to prioritise this
over national security.
Similarly his aggressive policy towards
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?
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
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
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?
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
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?)
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
abandoned the garrisons in Scotland
given their expense (he was far more
motivated by financial factors).
Mary’s 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 interesting as she appears to
focus more on national rather than
dynastic security- she is able to help
national security to some extent at
Cateau Cambresis by getting the French
to pull down their garrison at Eyemouth.
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?
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 at a dynastic level.
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.
The Break from Rome in 1533 was due to
Henry’s desire for a divorce, rather than a
real belief in Protestantism.
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 pushed for by
Cromwell, who was keen for a Protestant
German Alliance).
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
Although the marriage to
Anne of Cleves was to an
extent motivated by
religion, it was also
motivated out of a desire
for national security; given
England’s isolation, Henry
could not afford to be picky
as t his choice of ally!
After the 1536 Pilgrimage
of Grace, Henry VIII brings
in the Catholic 6 Articles
(restore certain elements
of Catholicism); this made
cooperation with Spain
more palatable to the
Spanish.
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 all
monarchs post
Henry VII seem
motivated by
religious factors
on the surface,
close
investigation
suggests
differently.
It would appear
that Sonmerset
and Elizabeth
were more
strongly
motivated by this
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
Religious
factors
played no
role in
influencing
foreign
policy until
1527
(contrast
Henry VII
with later
monarchs/
protectors.
Elizabeth
perhaps
seems more
motivated by
religion than
anybody
else, as she
actually gives
aid to the
Protestant
Dutch, the
Huguenots
and the
Protestant
Scots. Henry
VIII never
against the French.
protect the
Protestant
Scottish nobles
HOWEVER IN
THIS CASE,
RELIGION WAS
USED AS A
METHOD OF
SUBDUING THE
SCOTS- IT WAS
NOT THE AIM.
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
(in fact Pope Paul IV even supported the
French!)
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).
Both Henry VIII
and Somerset use
religion as a
method- for
Henry VIII religion
is used to break
from Rome and
let him solve his
dynastic
problems. For
Somerset,
spreading
Protestantism
into Sctoland
throught he
garrisoning policy
is an attempt to
solve the national
security threat
they pose to
England by
getting them to
turn away from
France.
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
THIS IS
OFTEN
MORE OF A
METHOD
THAN AN
AIM
Marriage to foreigners is however
important in influencing relations. Arthur
is betrothed to Catherine of Aragon in
1589- marry 1501. This begins a period of
friendship that save for minor
interruptions (e.g. the last few years of
Henry VII’s reign, 1527, and 1533-40) that
continues until the start of Elizabeth’s
reign.
The important thing to
remember when looking at
marriage agreements is
their purpose; marriage
agreements tended to be
made to either cement or
help create a dynasty, or
provide national security
through the provision of an
Henry VII is
strongly
influenced by
marriage (he goes
against neither
Spain nor
Scotland
following the
marriage
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’s
foreign
policies were
largely
influenced
by marriage
agreements
(he only
went against
BUT
MARRIAGE
TO A
FOREIGNER
WILL
INEVITABLY
INFLUENCE
TUDOR
FOREIGN
POLICY
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). This
aims to safeguard national security
(northern border) whereas Medina Del
campo aimed to guarantee dynastic
security by locking the Spanish into
supporting the Tudor dynasty.
The betrothal of Arthur to C of A (Medina
Del Campo) and then later marriage
(followed by Henry VIII’s marriage to C of
A) would greatly shape foreign policy,
with England largely pursuing a Pro
Spanish foreign policy (3 joined invasions
under Henry VIII, Mary’s marriage to
Philip and subsequent involvement in
Habsburg-Valois Wars, Philip II supporting
Elizabeth in the early part of her reign at
the Cateiu Cambresis negotiations).
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
ally 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!
The marriage of Margaret
to James IV, Mary Tudor
(Henry VIII’s sister) to Louis
and Henry VIII to Anne of
Cleves have little impact in
shaping foreign policy.
Louis dies the same year of
marriage (1516), Henry
divorces Anne of Cleves
within 6 months.
Margaret’s marriage
although improving
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
unlike Henry she
was never
actually married
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
integration
in 1540.
involved in Scotland, as demonstrated by
the Rough Wooing. This was similarly
continued by Somerset as demonstrated
by his garrisoning policy.
relations with Scotland in
the short term did not
prevent them attacking at
Flodden, and she fled from
Scotland in 1515.
to a Spaniard!)
The threat of invasion was
sufficient for James IV to
stop supporting Warbeck,
therefore political factors
did not really have much of
Ultimately, all
monarchs had
complete control
over their
direction of
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 and 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 marriage to Philip II
of Spain, and her determination to prove
England’s worth as an ally to him.
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
(provided dynastic security), 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).
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
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.
It would
seem that
Mary I gave
less
attention to
national/dynastic
security as well
as marriage
alliances are all
political factors,
whereas
financial/
religious/
economic 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 been
covered
I will look at the
importance of
political pressure
from either
ministers within
government/cour
tiers as well as
other internal
political
considerations.
Similarly, Henry VIII had to abandon his
plans to attack France in 1525 after
resistance to the Amicable Grant. Does
his decision not to attack the Netherlands
in 1527/8 show he was partially
influenced by political factors, as he was
motivated by a desire not to isolate the
politically and economically important
merchants?
In his first few years, Henry VIII was
constrained by conservative Councillors
e.g. Foxe, who kept the Privy Seal and
were able to prevent him from following
an over aggressive foreign policy. By the
time Henry was 21 however he took over
all aspects of government, making it
difficult to exert any real control over
him.
an effect in determining
foreign policy.
Was Henry VIII more
influenced by economic
rather than political
factors? It is impossible to
fight a war without money
(however he does not start
debasing the coinage until
the 1540s- possibly
countering this claim).
Although Henry VIII was
clearly influenced by
political figures such as
Cromwell to an extent, the
fact that he was willing to
execute Cromwell in 1540
shows he had no emotional
Henry VIII was generally reluctant to
attachment to such figures;
listen to others, however the influence of surely this suggests he
Cromwell saw him agree to the marriage
would not be excessively
with Anne of Cleves in 1540 (yet later that influenced by them.
year he had Cromwell executed). On the
other hand, Cromwell, as a religious
Elizabeth seems heavily
reformer had long being keen for a
motivated by Cecil, yet she
Protestant alliance, the fact that one was appears to not have
only agreed briefly in 1540 (and that the
attached particularly much
marriage lasted just 6 months) raises
importance to the views of
questions as to how much such factors
other more “adventurous”
motivated Henry.
councillors, most notably
Dudley and Essex.
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
foreign policy,
therefore
ultimately all
could ignore the
views of other
political figures.
political
factors than
other
monarchs.
Although her
decision to
marry Philip
Henry VII and
split the
Henry VIII did not council (e.g.
have to worry as
Paget was
much about
pro, but
isolating political
Gardiner was
figures, therefore anti), the
were generally
decision to
not held hostage
go to war
by ministers (in
with France
the way that
was opposed
Elizabeth could at by all in the
times be by
council. By
Cecil).
badly
misreading
All monarchs had the political
to think about the situation she
effects that their
provoked
policies would
serious
have on their own problems as
internal political
shown by
stability (with the Wyatt’s
exception of
Rebellion.
Mary who angers
the people of
On the other
England with her hand,
marriage to
councillors
Philip, and
felt they had
Somerset who
more right to
launches his
be consulted
expensive
when the
campaign in
monarch was
Scotland). Henry
a queen,
VII and VIII back
meaning that
down at points
there was
(1497, 1525,
more of an
1527), and
expectation
Elizabeth’s use of that Mary/
privateers to raise Elizabeth
money was
should
designed to
consult
mitigate avoid
them.
angering the
people of England It is
and thus
noticeable
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.
upsetting her
political security
(only 4 people
join the 1596
Oxfordshire rising
showing some
success!)
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?
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
Look how
the nature of
“personal
factors”
change.
Under Henry
VII and
Elizabeth
their
personal
aims are
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).
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/dynas
tic security are
motives for all
monarchs/
protectors,
Henry VII 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
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.
whereas
“personal
factors” are
motives that
are relevant
more to that
person.
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 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
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
developments within
Europe. Notice how in
Elizabeth’s early stages she
is cautious, before
becoming more aggressive
as Spain become more of a
threat.
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
security takes
priority.
With the possible
exception of
Mary/ protectors,
all monarchs have
to be willing to
abandon their
“personal aims”
at times.
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
reluctant to
marry.
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
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.
the mid/later
part of his
reign, as was
his intention.