Henry’s and Wolsey’s foreign policy in the years 1515-25 was unsuccessful therefore disagreeing with source 6. This is because neither Henry’s nor Wolsey’s aims were achieved to their full extent. Although there were successes in the foreign policy they were overshadowed in the ‘flaws in the construction’. This is supported by source 4 and 5 as they both emphasise the failures in the foreign policy. Source 6 is a reasonably positive source which suggests that Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy was quite successful during the years 1515-1525, for example Grossell writes about the conflict in 1519 between Francis and Charles, when they both desired the throne of the Holy Roman Empire when Maximilian died. He claims that: “Henry and Wolsey did well to preserve an independent and active role and win glory and prestige...” Which shows that Henry and Wolsey really did intend on keeping peace after the treaty of London, made in 1518, after realising fighting was not possible or achievable. After becoming known as ‘peacemaker’ Henry and Wolsey gained many supporters and much respect. It also meant that England was no longer under threat of diplomatic isolation. Similarly, further events shown in Source 4 indicates the success of Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy. The painting in source 4 was made in 1520 and shows the Field of the Cloth of Gold, during Francis’s and Henrys meeting. It was a way of showing Henry’s wealth and it enhanced prestige, which brought much respect.
However, there is evidence in source 6 to suggest that Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy was rather limited, for example Grossell mentions at the beginning of the source that it: “failed to bring great gains to the country” which could suggest that Henry’s and Wolsey’s efforts were often criticized as it had very little positive outcomes. For instance, the treaty of London was set to bring peace when 20 countries signed which guaranteed non aggression between the major powers. This was an effective policy as nothing like this had been done before. But the death of Maximilian meant that his efforts were wasted because the peace was not long lasting. Another example which shows that Henry’s and Wolsey’s foreign policy was not effective, was the was the campaign to invade France in 1511-1514. Once again the plan started well when he had Spain and France as allies, however the campaign failed because the two countries double crossed Henry and made agreements stop fighting with France. Henry was left humiliated and with little money to continue the invasion and therefore was seen as a failure. Although it can be debated that it was not a failure as Henry won the battle of the spurs in 1513 and captured Therouanne and Tournai from France which was a great gain and victory however many have said this battle was over exaggerated. The critical view of Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy is also supported by source 5 which tells us that the second
The critical view of Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy is also supported by source 5 which tells us that the second French war in 1523 puts weight to disprove the argument and shows Henry and Wolsey didn’t conduct an effective foreign policy. He barely had assistance while fighting the war and it resulted in Henry having little resources, materials and money which meant Henry did not benefit from the war as much as he first presumed. Another limitation to the second French war, was the lack of support. The public were outraged when Wolsey introduced the Amicable Grant which led to a big crisis. Wolsey made a new tax which helped to fund the war in 1525. This only resulted in the Grant being ‘scrapped’ and plans