The Battle of Britain Essay Example for Free

The Battle of Britain Essay neer the Master, Always the Servant. How Accurate is this Statement in Regard to Wolseys Conduct of Foreign Policy 1513-29? Had I but served God as diligently as I capture served the King, he would not have given me everywhere in my grey hairs. Cardinal Wolsey c. 1472-1530 Here Wolsey himself professed his obedience to heat subject field VIII, but historians of the tierer century and a half claimed that between 1513 and 1529 external policy was governed entirely by Wolsey, some suggesting that total heat gave exactly perfunctory compliment to his decrees. Modern historians dispute this, the kings aspirations and decisions being of fundamental importance. The function remains unsettled however, regarding the extent of Wolseys influence and manipulation. Contemporaries argued that Wolsey was effectual ruler, Alter Rex during particularly the mid(prenominal) 1520s, his palatial home eclipsing heat contents in political importance. Wolsey was clear very cunning he won hydrogens favour by shrewdly encouraging him to enjoy leisure activities and pull out the mundane politicking to him exploiting the mistakes of his predecessors.Cavendish declares, Thus the almoner ruled exclusively those that ruled before him. notwithstanding, Wolseys despair to gain Henrys esteem is evidence merely of the need for Henrys approval as Wolsey distinctly appreciated. Henry intervened less in politics before 1529 than he did afterwards, but as Peter Gwyn recognises this was only due to his sincere satisfaction and comprehension of Wolseys loyalty. From 1512 Wolsey climbed the political ladder very swiftly utilising the opportunity of the French invasion to exceed Henrys expectations and impress the king with prizes in Tournai and Therouanne.By mid 1514 Wolsey was receiving wholly the kings important business affairs, and exploiting Henrys need for an authoritative chief handmaiden fully Wolsey admittedly used his persuasion to gain himself numerous offices Dean of Lincoln, Bishop of Tournai, Bishop of Lincoln and Archbishop of York. Although Warham slake held the some senior church office, as Archbishop of Canterbury, Wolsey had won himself Lord Chancellorship by 1518, making him head of the legal system. However Wolseys ascendancy was resultant from Henrys appreciation of his talents, by the time of the treaty of St.Germaine-en-Laye with France in 1514 Randell recognises Henrys apparent disinterest with routine diplomacy, He was still keen to win glory, but was content for someone else to arrange it for him. His connections with the Papal authorities brought about suspicion that he had tied England to Roman foreign policy, such as Pollards insinuation that Wolsey considered his duty to his spiritual master over that over the king In 1518 he was appointed Legatus a latere, a position he was guaranteed for life in 1524.Scarisbrick however discredits Papal loyalty, acknowledging Wolseys disregard for Papa l instruction as frequently as it was adhered to. Although England and the papacy had roughhewn interests, it was merely coincidental for the Popes wishes to be followed, and the king himself had the same attitude to Wolsey towards the pope. Henry cherished to become Defender of the Faith and did so, in 1521, and there is more proof that it was he who encouraged Wolsey to keep up the office of Pope than vice versa.As Palmer asserts, Wolsey was no more or less a consideration of the Papacy than Henry himself. Wosley required the position of Prince of the Church (gained 1515) because he had not won such approval from the Papcy as he had from his royal master. He did not wish to rival Henrys business office by becoming Prince of the State because he was assured of Henrys support. Although Wolsey bragged of being author of the pause at the Treaty of London in 1518, and despite evidence for him formulating his induce policies by 1517 as Gwyn defends he was winning glory for his master.Scarisbrick recognises Wolseys confide to become arbiter of Europe, but his dependence upon Henry is undeniable. As Randell recognises, Wolsey a good deal hid things from Henry and considered ways in which he could put things to him in order to provoke a desire response, to push contenders away and get away with more than he officially should. Vergil even suggested that Wolsey bribed Henry with gifts to stave off him whilst he was making demands and to gain further favour. All these efforts, however, merely emphasize Wolseys dependence upon the king and his desperation to maintain his support.Randell suggests that Wolsey made independent decisions often trivial but sometimes-major(ip) ones, but Henry could and sometimes did intervene. Wolsey constantly needed to appear to be implementing Henrys decisions even if it was not always strictly the case. Skelton and Palsgrave, authors of articles in the House of Lords December 1929 attacked Wolseys arrogance and misrule durin g parliament and regarding matters of foreign policy, alleging he bestowed himself excess authority and wrongfully excluded other councillors from attending court, but evidence suggests that they were pursuing a ruthless campaign to get him dismissed.Although, as Guy points out, up until 1927 more than the details were left to Wolsey Henry was nevertheless broadly responsible passim all matters of foreign policy. Wolsey may have organised much of the minor details, such as the demand transport arrangements and food supplies during invasions, but it was under Henrys direction and command. The king would instruct Wolsey and deliver details of the task, which Wolsey undeniably fulfilled exceptionally and often made fitting amendments to Henrys broader schemes.Henrys certain dominance was clear by means ofout a number of issues. In 1518 Henry plunk for the Holy Roman Emperor despite Wolseys disproval and efforts to persuade him oppositely. Scarisbrick identifies disparagement betwe en Henry and Wolsey throughout the events of 1520 and 1521 the athletic field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 was extremely expensive and Wolsey discouraged Henry from spending such great amounts of money on what he anticipated to be a political fiasco, yet the event went in front with no expenses spared regardless of Wolseys advice.In 1521 Wolsey wanted peace in contrast to Henrys desire for warfare, but Wolsey was made to journey around Europe negotiating with Charles in Bruges that England and Spain should ally against France, and then returning to Calais. His comfortableness being that war would be delayed until 1522 but Henrys leadership is clear, the attack was still launched and Wolsey left disregarded once more. As Gwyn appreciates, Wolsey realised the importance of bringing honour to his master through dominating affairs which his desired neutrality would not bring.Wolsey deceived France against his own wishes to preserve Henrys major international role. In 1525 the Bat tle of Pavia saw the capture of King Francis and the strengthening of Henrys desire to become proud Ruler. Wolsey was then unable to act as an Imperial Arbitrator, Henry VIII wanted an Imperial adherence and Wolsey was forced to attempt the Amicable Grant for Henry to invade France, but this was impossible and in heroic the Treaty of the More was signed after the French war.The reversal was extremely embarrassing for Wolsey, who went through gangrene and dispute to gratify Henry VIII, eventually gaining an annual pension of 100000 gold crowns. Historian Dana Scott Campbell understands Wolsey as being motivated to tread the path necessary to ensure personal advancement and power in England. By satisfying Henry VIII with international glory and prestige his support was ensured although his power was compound by the Papal authorities, Roman influence was limited his self interest, over all else, forced him to please Henry primarily and the Pope if possible.He acted with more ala crity for Henry, and with more determination, joining the Anti-Imperial League of Cognac in 1526 and declaring war two years later. The Treaty of Cambrai in 1529 was a desperate attempt by Wolsey to declare Henrys partiality, and was signed by the leaders of England, France and the Holy Roman Empire. Wolsey underwent mortification and infringement of his own desires in order to please his King, both in the matters which he may have seem to see to it and in those which were quite obviously of Henrys design.Whether due to arrogance and untamed ambition or merely a desire to satisfy the King Wolsey routinely aimed to please him in all aspects of foreign policy. Grossel appreciates Wolseys desire to serve the king convictions in Wolseys vanity are now outdated as Wolsey clearly wanted to maintain the honour and influence of his own position through that of his king. Henrys coercive dominance is evidenced by the impossibility of Wolsey sustaining esteem as European Arbitrator because of Henrys belligerence (as well as the treachery of the European Kings).His independent decisions occurred only when permitted, or occasionally unknown, by Henry. Wolseys position was secured for the most part because of Henrys satisfaction with his conduct had it not been so (as in later years) Wolsey would have been rapidly dismissed. However, Randell recognises that the evidence for both supporting and admonishing Wolseys loyalty is in the form of letters written only to deceive the recipients, disparate word of mouth and untrustworthy third parties all of it unreliable.