English foreign policy in the years between 1513 and 1529 tried to mainly implement as much honour and prestige to the crown of England whilst restoring a once great nation with credibility for European politics. Overall it is clear that the foreign policy methods used by both Wolsey and Henry were effective in this period such as the Battle of floodin (1513) or The Treaty of London (1518) however the effectiveness of their foreign influence came at great costs such as the events of 1525 (amicable grant) and the Aftermath of Pavia (1525) in which Henry was left as a weak, lonely power in Europe, possibly hinting at a sense of ineffectiveness within the period given.
On one side of the argument, it was clear that Henry and Wolsey did carry out an effective foreign policy in the years 1513-1529. A clear display of this effectiveness is presented in source one, featuring the ‘Field of the cloth of gold’ painting. From this painting we can clearly infer that it was an effective display of Henry’s wealth and power, which was a fundamental aspect of English foreign policy, specifically to the king. We can tell that it was an effective display of wealth and power due to the fact that Henry was meeting with the French at the time of the Hasburg wars between Charles and Francis (1520), crucially putting Henry as a key figure within the table of European politics, being between the two largest powers at the time. Also considering the fact that in the Painting from source 1 Henry is depicted as the largest, most dominant figure at the meeting, sitting atop a noble white horse, presenting the idea that Henry is the wealthier of the two powers. Fundamentally, this position of ‘balancing the power’ gave essential credibility and honour to the foreign policy of Wolsey and Henry. This idea of wealth and power is reinforced within source 3, stating that ‘it thrust the country into a major role’. This crucially presents the idea that England and Henry were now ‘big players within the table of European politics’ and clearly shows how Wolsey and Henry’s foreign policy was effective between the years of 1513 and 1529.
The interpretation within source 3 suggests the idea that Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy brought honour and prestige to the king and maintained his influence within Europe. This is shown when the source’s author, David Grosswell, says that ‘Henry and Wolsey did well to preserve an independent and active role to win glory, honour and prestige’ which is clearly showing the idea that foreign policy was effective in the years 1513-1529 as bringing these accolades to the king was a key principle within English foreign policy at the time. This representation of honour and glory is supported by the application of the treaty of London in 1518, which brought great honour and prestige to crown and thrust England into the centre ground of European politics, also presenting the idea that Henry and England seemed to be ‘punching above their own weight’. Considering the fact that this treaty overshadowed the power of Pope Leo, showing to the 20 different powers in Europe that England was the more important figure in comparison to the Papacy and fundamentally gave a sense of credibility back the king, preventing England from being isolated and essentially leading to the impressive stance of the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Similarly, source 1 also presents the idea of honour and prestige via the use of large, luxurious buildings and palaces presented in the painting, implying the idea that the Field of the Cloth of gold (1520) did in fact make England seem to be a prestigious political nation, whom the powers of Europe needed on their side and clearly agrees with the view that Henry and Wolsey did conduct and effective foreign policy in the years 1513-1529.
On the other hand, the interpretation presented in source 2 suggests that Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy actually cost too much to be effective and caused horrendous riots within England. This is shown when the source states ‘concerning troubles associated with the Amicable grant’ which is reinforced from within the source saying ‘the joining together of many evil disposed persons’. These quotes are suggesting the idea that the Amicable Grant raised in 1525 was a great disaster as it triggered the coming the together of rebellions of both Norfolk, Essex and in Cambridgeshire. As a reaction to this rebellion for the amicable grant, which intended on forced taxes in order for Henry to mount an invasion of France, was abandoned. Also considering the fact that the previous French war of 1522-1523 was unsuccessful, this grant was a clear indication to show how the foreign policy was seeming to be ineffective, causing rebellions at home rather than bringing great prestige and honour to England. This theme of outrageous cost to English foreign policy is also represented in source 1, as it clearly depicts the expense of the money raised for England via the palaces and expensive tents etc. Thus the evidence from both sources 1 and 2 present the clear argument that the cost of Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policy was a key factor in showing its ineffectiveness between the years of 1513 and 1529.
Also another crucial interpretation from source 3 presents the idea that the foreign policy attempts from Henry and Wolsey didn’t actually bring any substantial gains to England despite its diplomatic success. This idea is shown when the source author states ‘ English diplomacy between 1515-1525 failed to bring great gains to the country’, clearly showing that the foreign policy conducted by Wolsey and Henry brought little significant gain for England. The theme of inadequate gains for England is reinforced via Wolsey’s failure to create anti-Hasburg alliance in 1516 which essentially led to the isolation of England by then of 1517, leaving both the crown and the people humiliated, clearly showing that the foreign policy of Henry and Wolsey could be considered a failure rather than a success.
Overall, from the representations presented within the sources and from the events between 1513-1529 both Henry and Wolsey did conduct an effective foreign policy between however the effectiveness of the policies implemented such as the Treaty of London in 1518 brought about great prestige for the crown whilst fundamentally being ignored by Europe due to the lack of power England actually had to inforce them. Foreign policy in the period given did achieve its goals, i.e., bringing prestige and honour to Henry , as presented in sources 1 and 3 also putting England and Henry in powerful positions within European politics but at the same time it triggered a major backlash within England itself e.g. the representations presented in source 2 concerning the trouble with the Amicable Grant and the rebellions from Norfolk and Essex etc. Finally considering both sources 1 and 2 are contemporary sources it may reveal the fundamental credibility or representations of them , for example source 1 is Cleary depicting the king as being the most noble, prestigious member of the field of cloth of gold possibly due to its alignment with England and henry, as for source 2 the letter concerning the troubles of the Amicable grant are being written to Wolsey by the dukes of Norfolk and Sussex, common enemies of Wolsey at the time.