Factors that influence foreign policy

How does its importance modify over the period?

When is its importance hidden/overrated?

Is it ever used as a mask (e.g. hide other aims)?

Comparisons that can be made across the period

Contrasts that can be made across 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Northumberland 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.

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.

was forced into adopting a more financially minded foreign policy.

Dynastic/ national security

Could also go under the umbrella of political factors

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.

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/ Northumberland) 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 consideration 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.

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).

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!)

protect the Protestant Scottish nobles HOWEVER IN THIS CASE, RELIGION WAS USED AS A METHOD OF SUBDUING THE SCOTS- IT WAS NOT THE AIM.

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.

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 Protestantism, his involvement is not quite at the same level as Elizabeth.

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

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 determination 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.

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.

relations with Scotland in the short term did not prevent them attacking at Flodden, and she fled from Scotland in 1515.

to a Spaniard!)

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.

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

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 coveredI will look at the importance of political pressure from either ministers within government/courtiers 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.

Henry VIII was generally reluctant to listen to others, however the influence of Cromwell saw him agree to the marriage with Anne of Cleves in 1540 (yet later that year he had 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

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 attachment to such figures; surely this suggests he 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.

foreign policy, therefore ultimately all could ignore the views of other political figures.

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 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 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 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

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).

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).

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?

Personal factors

This is another tricky one. I would say that certain factors e.g. national/dynastic 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.

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

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.

characterised more by caution, yet under Mary and Henry VIII they are characterised 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 entanglements 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.