Do you agree with the suggestion in Source N that Henry and Wolsey conducted and effective foreign policy in the years 1515-1525?

Sources L and N agree that Henry and Wolsey conducted an effective foreign policy in the years 1515-25 although as source L is a painting it has a motive and probably a bias one whilst source M disagrees with the statement by highlighting ‘troubles associated from the Amicable Grant’.
In source N (which is featured in a book wrote about Henry VIII at the time in question) contradicts itself to make its point. “Failed to bring great gains to the country, but it did thrust the country into a major role which that its wealth and population scarcely justified...” this makes the reader think that this was worth it for the positives it brought.
There were many successes of their (Henry and Wolsey’s) foreign policy. Wolsey was a successful peace broker, and the treaty of London in 1518 was a great example of him ability. This treaty in 1518 was an agreement of peace which seemed to put England in to the centre of diplomatic affairs in Europe (which was what Henry wanted). The treaty bound France, Spain, the Papacy, HRE and England against the Turkish. At the time it seemed like a great success as it seemed to signify the end of fear of England being isolated in Europe, however in the long term it failed despite the short term success.
Another success was the foreign policies flexibility despite England and the King having such low income and money. This is shown in source N by “Failed to bring great gains to the country, but it did thrust the country into a major role which that its wealth and population scarcely justified and made hard to sustain.” This source also implies Wolsey’s aim was to serve the king and maintain Henry’s honour and influence despite it being argued that Wolsey was a self interested diplomat and constantly craved for his achievements to be recognised so he would be known as ‘the great peacemaker’ across Europe.
Wolsey also managed to recognise the need to pick effective allies e.g. powerful countries to protect the security of England and interests. Because of this the Treaty of Bruges is signed. The treaty of Bruges was when in 1521 Wolsey arranged a conference in Calais and the agreement was that an English force would invade France unless the French king agreed to make peace.
The final success was the Field of the Cloth of Gold (referred to in source L), in 1520 Henry and Francis met near Calais and over 3,000 nobles from each kingdom were present at this extravagant feast. No expense was spared as both sides tried to show off their Renaissance credentials. Source L shows this success as the painting seems very royal. This celebration was a good way to improve relations but was also cheaper than war which at a time where England had no money was crucial.
ON the other hand there are many examples which deemed foreign policy ineffective. Firstly, even though the Field of the Cloth of Gold had a few advantages, there were also some negatives. The biggest negative was it was essentially an expensive nothing. Nothing was signed or bound in writing it just was essentially a big party between the two. As well as this but there was a wrestling match between Henry and Francis which Henry lost.
Henry’s campaigns had few gains. The campaigns of 1512-13 were expensive and ultimately fruitless in the long term. It is clear that most of the foreign treaties failed and/or were ineffective, even though at the time they worked for a short amount of time.
One of the main points that the foreign policy was ineffective was because Henry wasted the secure financial legacy Henry VII had left fighting wars during the period 1511-25 (£1.4 million). The cost of this period caused Wolsey to call on ‘parliamentary taxation’ and forced loans. This led to the Amicable Grant in 1525 and this was met with violent disapproval which led to refusing to pay and a rebellion across Suffolk and East Anglia. The Amicable Grant was abandoned in May 1525 and no further taxation was attempted Wolsey. Henry denied knowledge of this and those opposing Wolsey began to see vulnerability in Henry.
In short the English foreign policy was costly and short sighted. These points are crucial in evaluating how effective the policy was as its clear overall outcome made it obvious that Henrys aims and ambitions were unrealistic especially his goal of ‘conquering France’.
To conclude I do not agree with the statement “Henry and Wolsey conducted an effective foreign policy.
Billy Holdsworth