How Far Do Sources 1, 2 and 3 Suggest That Scotland Was, and Remained, a Threat to Henry’s Ambitions in France?

470 Words2 Pages
While all of the sources offer evidence suggesting that Scotland was a threat to Henry’s campaigns in France, sources 1 and 2 especially support this. However, these sources, and also source 3 demonstrate more a potential threat rather than an actual one, which Scotland posed towards Henry’s ambitions in France. Introduce both sources- similar or different reasons? Identify provenance of source, and how this would affect source. Then identify how source evidences statement, perhaps quote or refer closely to source. Sources 1, 2 and 3 all support the statement to an extent, source and 1 and 2 for similar reasons. Source 1 is from a contemporary historian. Polydore Vergil is usually quite favourable towards Henry VIII, and therefore his rather critical assessment of the instability of the north and thereby the Scottish threat of invasion is all the more accurate. Therefore the source suggests that Henry’s inability to enforce the ‘newly-imposed head tax’ contributed not only to a lack of funds for wars with France, but also his failure to combat the tax boycott ‘gave [James IV] hope of undertaking something’. Source 2 confirms what is being said in source 1 as it demonstrates that the threat was real, accounting how James did actually invade, taking advantage of Henry's absence, which confirms the suspicions of the Privy Council in source 1. Source 1 also implies that Henry may have had to abandon any plans made to invade France due to the possible Scottish invasion, 'against King Henry in his absence'. Yet the situation was double edged sword; if Henry chose to ignore the potential threat of a Scottish invasion and stayed to campaign in France, he risked the former actually coming true. If however, he decided to return to England in order to discourage James IV from attacking, he would lose progress in France. Therefore either way, Henry's ambitions in France
Open Document