Henry VIII: Foreign Policy to 1547
Is it an irony that so much change occurred in the 1530’s during the reign of a monarch who was essentially a medieval king in his approach to foreign affairs?
Domestic affairs meant that much of Henry’s foreign ambitions were put on hold during the 1530’s. But 1540-47 saw a revival of his aims and these would add to the problems of his people.
In the 1540’s Henry had two main concerns, Scotland and France. Historians have viewed these concerns differently over time.
Traditional:
Interest in Scotland centred on large-scale plan to rule all of Britain.
France was more personal and a product of martial ambition.
Revisionist:
Henry becomes involved in Scotland to prevent back door attack prior to attack against France.
Early success in Scotland ‘sucked’ Henry into Scottish affairs more deeply than originally intended.
Foreign Policies in the 1530's
The 1530’s = mainly defensive role – against the grain for Henry.
Up to the time of the divorce Henry’s main ally had been Charles V – through marriage and trade (England and Netherlands). Also because Scotland allied with France and Henry claimed the French throne.
Divorce and religion split the alliance between Charles and Henry.
Therefore an Anglo-French alliance seemed a distinct possibility except for the fact that Charles and Francis remained at peace from 1529-36.
1536 saw renewal of conflict between the two great powers over claims on Milan.
The death of Catherine of Aragon made the renewal of Anglo-Hapsburg alliance a possibility. (Also Anne Boleyn was executed in 1536).
BUT 1536 was not a year for military action abroad due to the pilgrimage of Grace.
1538 saw the declaration of a ten-year truce between Francis and Charles. With the urging of the Pope they even considered a crusade against England!! With Scotland there as well, England felt particularly vulnerable.
‘A morsel amongst these choppers’ Thomas Wriothsley.
Other difficulties were that this was the time of Henry’s ‘religious moderation’.
The disastrous Cleves marriage followed overtures to the German Protestant princes.
Finally there were still memories of the vulnerability of the Tudors. Yorkist claimants still hung around and their association with Catholicism amplified their threat. The ‘White Rose’ party.
Two families were the Poles and the Courtenays.
November 1538 saw the arrest of Henry Pole, Henry Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter and Sir Edward Neville. Execution followed in December. Margaret, Countess of Salisbury was imprisoned. Immediate cause was the involvement of Reginald pole in the proposed crusade against England. His brother Geoffrey confessed to family involvement in treasonable activities. Margaret was executed in 1541, 42 years after the execution of her brother the Earl of Warwick by Henry VII. Spookily Henry Pole’s small son was imprisoned and disappeared.
So after 30 years on the throne the last ten years must have galled Henry in respect of his involvement in Europe. After the changes of the 1530’s he could now get back to his real purpose in life and let rip in France.
Anglo-Scottish relations
By 1540 the Franco-Hapsburg alliance was in trouble and Henry would have hoped to rebuild the Anglo-Hapsburg alliance.
Firstly he needed to subdue the Scots and his nephew James V. Henry felt that James lacked the proper respect that he was due as his uncle and as a major European monarch.
The Scots however were anti-English and anti-Protestant as exemplified by the leading churchman in the Scottish court, Cardinal-Archbishop David Beaton. Noticeably James had married twice, both times to French princesses, most recently Mary of Guise.
In 1541 Henry arranged to meet James at York to impress upon him his views and personality. This was Henry’s first journey north. James failed to arrive at York and Henry suitably snubbed prepared an assault upon Scotland.
1541 also saw the end of the Franco-Hapsburg alliance. By 1542 Henry and Charles had agreed a joint attack on France in the summer of 1543.
In October 1542 Henry launched his attack on Scotland. The Duke of Norfolk led his forces. Initially wary of going to war the Scots’ mood was altered by the savagery and destruction of Norfolk’s initial campaign where six days were spent looting, burning and wrecking before returning to Berwick.
On the 23rd November a Scottish force of around 20,000 men advanced on smaller English army at Solway Moss. They were defeated and two weeks later James V died (supposedly from shame). He was succeeded by his infant daughter Mary Queen if Scots.
Unexpectedly the door was open for Henry to gain clear and permanent control of Scotland whereas the original aim had been to ensure Scottish passivity whilst attacking France. It was enough of a possibility for Henry to postpone the French campaign for a year.
Matters did not go as planned.
Initially matters looked promising. The new Regent of Scotland, the Earl of Arran, seemed ready to co-operate with Henry and arrested David Beaton, the pillar of the Franco-Scottish alliance. The Scottish parliament sanctioned a translation of the Bible. Most importantly negotiations began to marry Prince Edward to the infant Queen Mary. This was enshrined in the Treaty of Greenwich of 1543.
Arran had hopes of being King as next in line, he was stringing Henry along. When Henry demanded the end of the French alliance Arran and the Scots parliament repudiated the Treaty of Greenwich, Beaton came back to power and the ‘Auld Alliance’ was firmly re-established.
If only Henry had realised that only armed conquest could win Scotland on a permanent basis. Henry’s reaction to being outmanoeuvred was to instigate the ‘rough wooing’ – the burning of Edinburgh and the lowlands by the Earl of Hertford (the future Somerset).
Despite the vicious and efficient execution of this policy and despite its repeat in 1545 there was no chance of the Scots surrendering to this type of pressure. In reality it cemented the alliance between France and the Scots
England and France
In 1544 Henry launched his attack on France.
The plan was a two-pronged attack on Paris, which would quickly bring France to her knees.
Lacking decisiveness Henry (and his army) lacked the necessary speed.
Despite the size of the army (48,000 men left England) success was always unlikely, not only due to the lack of speed, the age of not only Henry but also the two principal English commanders, the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, but also because of the inherent mistrust between Charles and Henry. Henry had thirty years experience of being let down by his ‘allies’. The result was neither followed the plan through and both sided blamed each other for the failure of the plan.
Henry ignored Paris and divided his forces. Norfolk unsuccessfully besieged Montreuil but Suffolk and Henry captured Boulogne on 18th September, the same day that Charles made peace with France.
The only prize of this expedition then was Boulogne and Henry would not let this go! This decision had important implications for England.
As \\a port it was difficult to defend but Henry had it garrisoned and rebuilt to withstand French attacks. In 1544 the cost of its maintenance was £130,000. This brought the total cost of the campaign to £1 million. In 1545 the French launched a counter-invasion against the English coast with the intention of capturing the Isle-of-Wight. Henry’s pride and joy, the Mary Rose, was sunk with the loss of 500men.
In 1546 Henry signed the Treaty of Camp in June. Henry was allowed to keep Boulogne for eight years and was granted a resumption of the pension won by Edward IV in 1475.
Henry’s final foreign escapade had been a futile disaster.
Henry dictated policy personally. Even in 1546 when councillors were urging peace upon him, Henry was ordering different groups of councillors to negotiate with France and the Emperor, oblivious to the other group’s orders.
Remember as well that Henry had no Wolsey or even a Cromwell to act for him. By himself his diplomatic and military skills did not match up to his own dreams. The final word lies with Stephen Gardiner:
‘We are at war with France and Scotland, we have enmity with the Bishop of Rome; we have no assured friendship here with the emperor and we have received from the landgrave, chief captain of the Protestant, such displeasure that he has cause to think us angry with him…. Our war is noisome to our realm and to all our merchants that traffic through the Narrow Seas’.
Economic Policies
By the 1540’s the cost of war had risen enormously. The economic planning of Henry’s council was defeated by the huge cost of defences (at Berwick, Calais, Boulogne and south-coast ports). Mercenaries were expensive, the army was huge and the wars lasted longer than planned for.
The financial impact on the English economy of Henry’s wars was disastrous.
Prices rose dramatically between 1540 and 1560
The major cause of this was the measures taken to pay for Henry’s wars, which affected everybody in England in the most harmful and practical way by increasing the prices of the food, they ate and devaluing the wages they received.
The basic equation is a familiar one. The ordinary revenue was inadequate for war.
Therefore taxation was necessary to cover the costs. This equalled an annual extraordinary income twice as big as Henry’s normal revenue. BUT even this parliamentary taxation could not make up the shortfall.
The council had to come up with new measures at the same time as inflation defeated their calculations.
War demonstrated the limitations of parliamentary taxation. Subsidies were granted in 1543 and 1545 but were still being collected in 1544 and 1546. £430,00 was collected, a huge amount in such a short time. However the actual amount was still six per cent less than the target yield (as opposed to the usual 1 per cent).
In 1542 and 1545 Henry also raised forced loans of over £110,000. This brought him a total of £650,000 from traditional extraordinary sources.
Yet this was only one-quarter of what was needed. Desperate needs equal desperate measures, the sale of royal lands and the debasement of the coinage.
Cromwell would have turned in his grave as around half the lands gained in the 1530’s were disposed of. Although around one million pounds were raised the long-term implications for the crown were significant as the loss of land and income would further the crown’s reliance on parliament.
The Last Years of Henry VIII 1540-47
The Rule of Faction
From 1540 the Council re-emerges after the death of Cromwell. The divorce from Anne of Cleves and the execution of Catherine Howard follow quickly through 1541-1542. The fall of Catherine is an example of the stakes of faction politics with Cranmer, Edward Seymour etc. having a political/religious interest in seeing her fall as she was the ‘puppet’ of Gardiner and Norfolk.
However with the death of Cromwell the Privy Council emerged. Led byNorfolk and Gardiner it was the epitome of a government led by nobility. This was where the true role of the nobility lay. It was a small, ruling council, dominated by the nobility . When the nobility dominated government then such a council runs affairs. This had happened after Wolsey’s death and in the crisis of 1536. The same happened in 1540. There animosity to Cromwell can be seen in the charges levelled against Cromwell when they refer to ‘the very base and low degree’ from which Henry had raised him.
The new Privy Council was made up almost exclusively of office-holders. They were not just the heads of bureaucratic departments however- often they were well down the pecking order of hierarchical social status. The main elements were the great office holders – the Great Chamberlain or the Earl Marshal – remnants of medieval times. They were also the more modern administrative positions such as Lord Chancellor or Lord Privy Seal. By the mid sixteenth century many of these positions were symbolic only and the administrative roles were no longer only held by the clergy. Thus the reforms of 1539 fused all the great offices into a single table of rank and the conciliar reform of 1540 made them all members of the new Privy Council. This Privy Council is particular to the mid Tudor period and has little in common with the less noble and more ‘expert’ Privy Council of Elizabeth I.
This aristocratic approach to government in the 1540s brought a new conservatism to the fore, socially’ politically and religiously.
However the court and the Privy Chamber remained ostensibly as Cromwell had created and any advances made there were lost with Catherine Howard’s execution. One of the key figures in this respect was Sir Anthony Denny, Head of the Privy Chamber, whom Starkey regards as the courtier par excellence of the last years of Henry’s reign. Denny was so busy in these years that he had his own office which was managed by his brother in law John Gates, also a gentleman of the Privy Chamber. It was Gates who was given charge of the DRY STAMP *from 1545.
So from 1545 Henry is exposed to the pull of two differing factions. On the one hand the revitalized and conservative Privy Council and on the other a radical Privy Chamber led by the subtle Denny with the harder Gates.
In 1540 after the death of Cromwell Sadler and Sir Thomas Wyatt narrowly escaped the block. In 1543 Cranmer was accused of heresy though Henry treated the charges lightly even appointing Cranmer to investigate the charges himself.
* The Dry stamp was a carved facsimile of Henry’s signature which left an indent in paper. A skilled pensman would then go over the indent with pen to create a copy of the king’s signature
The next threat lay in an attack on the radicals of the Privy Chamber itself which followed accusations of heresy against the musicians of the Chapel royal atWindsor . At an opportune moment Henry married Catherine Parr who inclined to the ‘new’ in religion. The members of the Privy Chamber were granted pardons.
There are two interpretations of these events. One sees Henry as puppet maker toying with his ministers to show them who was boss. The other view is of Henry as victim of faction. It depends on how we perceive the events. Starkey presents another view in that the events are typically Henrician in that they demonstrate Henry’s indecisiveness. In the 1530s the pressure to make the final decision had been great. In the 1540s there is no such pressure and Henry naturally vacillates. Imprisonment –yes; execution – rarely!
Such a theory obviously would enable those involved to believe that they had manipulated the King effectively- outwitting the other faction.
Generally however it was the Privy Chamber which lay closer to Henry and prevented the conservative faction from gaining total ascendancy. Also taken into consideration should be the impact at court of Catherine Parr.
In 1546 the conservative faction/Privy Council began an assault on the court which led to the stake for some. The story of Ann Ascue and her resilience to what reads as a desperate level of brutality from even senior members of the Privy Council symbolises the limits that factionalism had reached. A direct ‘assault’ on the Queen followed which culminated in Thomas Wriothsley arriving with guards to arrest the Queen only to be sent packing by Henry.
From 1546 to his death Henry was racked by intense pain from ulcers on the legs. Rapid weight gain followed and the depression of a once fit and active man is not surprising. Such pain can lead to being easily manipulated. By now ‘more was at stake than control of the present’. The proximity of death seemed ever more likely and that meant a succession issue. ‘faction bred in uncertainty, and a change of monarch was the greatest uncertainty of all’.
That Edward would succeed was not beyond question but the nature of the regency was the key doubt. Against this scenario new friendships would forge and old alliances die.
From 1540 the Council re-emerges after the death of Cromwell. The divorce from Anne of Cleves and the execution of Catherine Howard follow quickly through 1541-1542. The fall of Catherine is an example of the stakes of faction politics with Cranmer, Edward Seymour etc. having a political/religious interest in seeing her fall as she was the ‘puppet’ of Gardiner and Norfolk.
However with the death of Cromwell the Privy Council emerged. Led by
The new Privy Council was made up almost exclusively of office-holders. They were not just the heads of bureaucratic departments however- often they were well down the pecking order of hierarchical social status. The main elements were the great office holders – the Great Chamberlain or the Earl Marshal – remnants of medieval times. They were also the more modern administrative positions such as Lord Chancellor or Lord Privy Seal. By the mid sixteenth century many of these positions were symbolic only and the administrative roles were no longer only held by the clergy. Thus the reforms of 1539 fused all the great offices into a single table of rank and the conciliar reform of 1540 made them all members of the new Privy Council. This Privy Council is particular to the mid Tudor period and has little in common with the less noble and more ‘expert’ Privy Council of Elizabeth I.
This aristocratic approach to government in the 1540s brought a new conservatism to the fore, socially’ politically and religiously.
However the court and the Privy Chamber remained ostensibly as Cromwell had created and any advances made there were lost with Catherine Howard’s execution. One of the key figures in this respect was Sir Anthony Denny, Head of the Privy Chamber, whom Starkey regards as the courtier par excellence of the last years of Henry’s reign. Denny was so busy in these years that he had his own office which was managed by his brother in law John Gates, also a gentleman of the Privy Chamber. It was Gates who was given charge of the DRY STAMP *from 1545.
So from 1545 Henry is exposed to the pull of two differing factions. On the one hand the revitalized and conservative Privy Council and on the other a radical Privy Chamber led by the subtle Denny with the harder Gates.
In 1540 after the death of Cromwell Sadler and Sir Thomas Wyatt narrowly escaped the block. In 1543 Cranmer was accused of heresy though Henry treated the charges lightly even appointing Cranmer to investigate the charges himself.
* The Dry stamp was a carved facsimile of Henry’s signature which left an indent in paper. A skilled pensman would then go over the indent with pen to create a copy of the king’s signature
The next threat lay in an attack on the radicals of the Privy Chamber itself which followed accusations of heresy against the musicians of the Chapel royal at
There are two interpretations of these events. One sees Henry as puppet maker toying with his ministers to show them who was boss. The other view is of Henry as victim of faction. It depends on how we perceive the events. Starkey presents another view in that the events are typically Henrician in that they demonstrate Henry’s indecisiveness. In the 1530s the pressure to make the final decision had been great. In the 1540s there is no such pressure and Henry naturally vacillates. Imprisonment –yes; execution – rarely!
Such a theory obviously would enable those involved to believe that they had manipulated the King effectively- outwitting the other faction.
Generally however it was the Privy Chamber which lay closer to Henry and prevented the conservative faction from gaining total ascendancy. Also taken into consideration should be the impact at court of Catherine Parr.
In 1546 the conservative faction/Privy Council began an assault on the court which led to the stake for some. The story of Ann Ascue and her resilience to what reads as a desperate level of brutality from even senior members of the Privy Council symbolises the limits that factionalism had reached. A direct ‘assault’ on the Queen followed which culminated in Thomas Wriothsley arriving with guards to arrest the Queen only to be sent packing by Henry.
From 1546 to his death Henry was racked by intense pain from ulcers on the legs. Rapid weight gain followed and the depression of a once fit and active man is not surprising. Such pain can lead to being easily manipulated. By now ‘more was at stake than control of the present’. The proximity of death seemed ever more likely and that meant a succession issue. ‘faction bred in uncertainty, and a change of monarch was the greatest uncertainty of all’.
That Edward would succeed was not beyond question but the nature of the regency was the key doubt. Against this scenario new friendships would forge and old alliances die.