Read the extract you have been given on Henry VII’s foreign policy.

1. Read the extract you have been given on Henry VII’s foreign policy.

2. EXTRACT A: John Guy, Tudor England, Oxford 1988 Throughout his reign Henry VII’s foreign policy was defensive: he reacted to external events in order to secure his Crown and dynasty. Initially indebted to Brittany and France, he had to neutralize the capacity of France, Spain, Burgundy, and Scotland to profit from Yorkist claimants and safeguard his northern border with Scotland. So his first moves were designed to win time. Truces with France and Scotland were ratified and a commercial treaty negotiated with Brittany, while talks began for the betrothal of Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon in March 1488. Yet what Henry especially needed was an alliance with the Burgundians Netherlands, the chief market for English exports and springboard for the Yorkists.

3. Step One: Be clear about the focus of the question. Be clear about any date focus. Using your understanding of the historical context, assess how convincing the arguments in these three extracts are in relation to Henry VII’s foreign policy between 1485 and 1509. TOP TIPS • Your answer should only refer to Henry VII’s foreign policy between 1485 and 1509 even if the extract talks briefly about something else.

4. Step Two: Outline the overall argument of the extract. Overall, the extract is arguing that Henry’s attitude towards foreign policy was a defensive one where he reacted to situations as they occurred. TOP TIPS: • Only write one sentence summing up the extracts argument in relation to the question. This question is not testing your comprehension skills. • Make sure you refer to the focus of the question – in this case foreign policy during Henry VII’s reign. • Do not write out the provenance of the source – it’s a waste of precious minutes in the exam. • Be careful – the first line of the extract doesn’t always outline the overall argument. Read the WHOLE source carefully.

5. Step Three: Find the 3 sub-arguments within the extract. • He had to neutralise the threat from Spain, France, Scotland and Burgundy to stop the Yorkist threat. • He had to secure his border with Scotland. • He needed to secure an alliance with Burgundy for trade. • TOP TIPS • Be clear about the difference between arguments and evidence. Here Guy talks about the marriage negotiations – that is evidence. You can’t say how convincing that is as it definitely happened. • There may be more than 3 sub-arguments in the extract. Choose what you consider to be the main ones. Do not tackle them all as you will run out of time.

6. Step Four: Find evidence to support the sub-arguments (it’s convincing) or evidence to challenge the sub-arguments (it’s less convincing). He had to neutralise the threat from Spain, France, Scotland and Burgundy to stop the Yorkist threat. • Less convincing because initially he had to aid Brittany against France when Charles VIII threatened to take it over. Henry had to send 6000 troops under Lord Daubeney to aid Brittany. • However, although he had to do this initially ultimately he did neutralise the threat from France by invading in 1492 and gaining a lot from the Treaty of Etaples: Charles VIII withdraw support for Warbeck, reimbursed pension given to Edward IV and gave Henry back the costs of the invasion. • Treaty of Windsor 1504 Burgundy gave Earl of Suffolk over to Henry (Yorkist threat). • Marriage of Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon. He needed to secure an alliance with Burgundy for trade. • Very convincing. Sheep and wool trade very important for London and East Anglian merchants. If this trade collapsed then so would England’s economy. • Intercursus Magnus1496 • Intercursus Malus 1504 He had to secure his border with Scotland. • Relations cordial up to 1495 so securing the border not an issue. • Crisis 1495-1498 with Warbeck’s small invasion of England in 1496 but received no support in Northumberland so not so important to secure his border. • Relations more positive in latter part of reign with Treaty of Perpetual Peace and marriage of Princess Margaret to James so threat from border not such an issue. Less convincing More convincing

7. Step Five: Evaluate how convincing you find the argument. You will have parts of the argument you find less convincing and parts you find more convincing. Either: • Do it on simple maths – which side has the more evidence to support it? • Evaluate the evidence. In this case, securing the Scottish border may be less convincing but this is a relatively minor part of Henry’s aims in foreign policy according to Guy. He gives more space in the extract to the fact that the most important aspect of Henry’s reign was to stop the Yorkist threat and maintain trade – you may well agree that this was the most important aim too. Therefore, overall Guy’s argument is convincing as he has placed more emphasis on this sub argument and there is more convincing evidence to support it. TOP TIPS • Evaluate which of the sub-arguments is the most important to help you judge how convincing the extract is overall. • If this is unclear (which it may well be) do it on the maths and weight of evidence one way or the other. • A historian is never ‘wrong’ or ‘not convincing’. They are all convincing in some ways and less convincing in others. • Start your final sentence of the paragraph with ‘although …’ to show you appreciate one side but overall you agree with the opposite side.

8. Using the slides, write up this paragraph. Remember – think of it as a mini essay.

9. Now do your own!Extract B: S. B. Chrimes, Henry VII As a result his policy developed piecemeal, as the outcome of a series of defensive reactions to external events. If we add to these domestic purposes the most fundamental one of all, namely the preservation of his crown and dynasty and the establishment of both as things to be reckoned with in international affairs, perhaps we are saying almost as much as we can about his basic motives. Certainly his policy was ‘not a carefully planned system’, but whether it really ‘grew into the likeness of a coherent system’ is doubtful. It seems difficult to perceive much of a ‘system’ in Henry’s diplomacy, though ‘his reactions to external pressures sprang from firm-seated and consistent instincts, or rather from a clear and balanced understanding of the basic interests of the dynasty and the nation.’