How far do sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Scotland was, and remained, a threat to Henry VIII’s ambitions in France?
How far do sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Scotland was, and remained, a threat to Henry VIII’s ambitions in France?
France’s power in Europe at the beginning of the 16th Century, understandably made the English monarch feel threatened; not only out of envy for what he saw as ‘his throne’, but out of fear that his own empire might be taken away. The added pressure of Scotland’s looming presence as a constant potential threat may have been a distraction to Henry. In using these sources it is also clear that even when certain obstacles were overcome by the English, as a means to an end of the Scottish threat that Scotland often came back fighting no matter what Henry did.
On one hand, Scotland was and remained a threat for a long time during and even after Henry’s reign. This is evident in sources 1, 2 and 3. In source 1, Polydore Vergil, a historian, talks about how the money-men ignored their responsibility of collecting tax from the people of England in order to essentially ‘stay on their good sides’. King James of Scots is mentioned by name, as being someone who could invade England while the king was away at battle; clearly showing that Scotland has the strength to invade an entire country on such short-term notice. As well as this, Scotland was and still is the major country that borders England. The fact that England’s greatest rival was adjacent to them at the time further proves that this ‘neighbourly’ competition and battle would go on for a while. As well as this, in source 2, Catherine talks about the defeat of the Scottish king in a letter to Henry, and how it was ‘the greatest blessing that could be to you and all your realm’. The queen at the time wouldn’t have described it like this, unless Scotland was somewhat of a threat to England at the time. However, the extent of the success of the battle may have been judged inaccurately by Catherine, in order to make the King happy. For this reason the source may not be completely accurate. Source 3 backs
France’s power in Europe at the beginning of the 16th Century, understandably made the English monarch feel threatened; not only out of envy for what he saw as ‘his throne’, but out of fear that his own empire might be taken away. The added pressure of Scotland’s looming presence as a constant potential threat may have been a distraction to Henry. In using these sources it is also clear that even when certain obstacles were overcome by the English, as a means to an end of the Scottish threat that Scotland often came back fighting no matter what Henry did.
On one hand, Scotland was and remained a threat for a long time during and even after Henry’s reign. This is evident in sources 1, 2 and 3. In source 1, Polydore Vergil, a historian, talks about how the money-men ignored their responsibility of collecting tax from the people of England in order to essentially ‘stay on their good sides’. King James of Scots is mentioned by name, as being someone who could invade England while the king was away at battle; clearly showing that Scotland has the strength to invade an entire country on such short-term notice. As well as this, Scotland was and still is the major country that borders England. The fact that England’s greatest rival was adjacent to them at the time further proves that this ‘neighbourly’ competition and battle would go on for a while. As well as this, in source 2, Catherine talks about the defeat of the Scottish king in a letter to Henry, and how it was ‘the greatest blessing that could be to you and all your realm’. The queen at the time wouldn’t have described it like this, unless Scotland was somewhat of a threat to England at the time. However, the extent of the success of the battle may have been judged inaccurately by Catherine, in order to make the King happy. For this reason the source may not be completely accurate. Source 3 backs