Academic Essay

The following essay is work of Bruno Russell and cannot be copied without reference and was produced under assessment by the University of Southampton.

'The Plague of 1509-47: Faction in the Court of King Henry VIII'

This essay argues that not only was faction significant during Henry VIII's reign but that it plagued the Henrican court and posed a serious threat to Henry's power. This argument will be established through three poignant case studies: the downfall of Anne Boleyn, the influence of Cromwell and the final will of Henry. Even though debated itself, in order to aid more analytical debate, Ives' definition of faction will be presupposed here: 'sets and subsets acting for mutual support and advantage'. Within this argument established ideas on factional influence will be explored, especially those provided by Elton, Ives and Starkey while Bernard's anti-factional argument will be rejected due to its giving of undeserved praise of Henry; rejecting faction instrumentally in the process.

The downfall of Anne Boleyn is an exemplar of the significance faction played within court. The downfall arguably was a result of factional rivalry led by Cromwell - backed by Catholic ministers temporarily uniting under joint interest - in order to depose Anne who was seen as a political rival for her undue political hold over Henry. The inflated charges proposed against Anne - of adultery, treason and incest - are likely false and the common law approach, one being innocent until proof of guilt, should certainly be applied here. Opportunists spotted Henry's disappointment at Anne's failure to deliver a male heir, especially following the 1534 miscarriage of a male foetus, and exploited this vulnerability in Henry's current psychology to convince him of her apparent guilt. This 'chorus' of haters placed Jane Seymour to purposefully tantalise the king 'at the same time poisoning his mind against Anne'. The wording of the conviction against Anne: she allowed others to 'violate' and 'carnally know her' and 'she tempted her brother with tongue in the said George's mouth' shows - through use of such emotive language - Henry's unbearable anger and resentment at what he believed his wife committed. Henry can believe her guilt - it is, after all, what Cromwell tells him to be true. It, however, has no grounding in evidence; the confession of Mark Smeaton - the central pivot to Cromwell's argument - was likely gained from torture as part of the faction's desperate attempts to persuade Henry of their cause. Henry, however, is not innocent of all: due to his susceptibility to Cromwell's faction, Henry must be deemed as weaker; he should have prevented a witch-hunt. The plethora of work - both historical and fictional - on Anne has evoked great sympathy for her and although this may not be fully deserved - she certainly attempted to manipulate power proven by her withholding of sex to originally control Henry - it centralises this idea of faction's victims being symbols of compassion. As Ives succinctly summarises, Anne Boleyn's downfall is a 'classic example of Tudor faction in operation' ; the significance is clear: when a factional group - here the Anti-Boleyn - fight, they have the power to control and write history; essentially Henry is not writing the history of his kingdom but faction. This subsequently also leads to a weaker view of Henry as faction both undermines and manipulates his power.

Another prominent case study is Cromwell's political position which has aroused much debate, especially after Elton's influential account of Cromwellian revolution that set Cromwell as a figure-head, arguably above Henry, in reform: both religious and financial. Cromwell thus transformed the government under his own ideology; with much antagonism building up around him. This influence is seen in Eustace Champuy's letter to imperial chancellor Granville in which he describes how the feeling in court is there is 'not a person who does anything except Cromwell'. Arguably, this building antagonism through Cromwell's supremacy amounts to a grave faction that not only caused a clash in court between political giants but also eventually caused Cromwell's downfall when the faction opportunistically pounced on his failures during the sham marriage to Anne of Cleves in 1540. Starkey talks of a pro-Cromwell and anti-Cromwell factional battle forming in court from 1532-40; putting this down to Cromwell's personal feeling of supremacy enforced by the king's failure to monitor him. Cromwell was allowed to lead his interests within court, forming Elton's 'revolution', without succinct challenge from Henry. Thus, two conclusions can be derived: firstly faction arises through a split of views on Cromwell thus undermining the king's power as this presented conflict in court that Henry should have avoided. Henry after all admitted killing Cromwell was a fatally misjudged decision made by undue factional influence; he reports to the French ambassador Marillac how ministers 'made him' under 'false accusations. put to death the most faithful servant he ever had'. Naturally, Henry may be exaggerating to evoke French sympathies but his openness to admit such provides firm evidence of Henry's realisation of factional influence as Henry would not want to have admitted this to the French either unless it was necessary, because it makes him appear weak and less authoritative; a view he certainly would not favour from other European powers. Conversely, some suggest while faction was produced its significance was lesser. Scarisbrick summarises the primary account of 'when, as alleged, he (Henry VIII) hit Thomas Cromwell around the head and swore at him'. This suggests that while faction was present, Henry retained control and - even if through physical force - he was able to command his power in court. Thus arguably the significance of faction could be downplayed.

However, two responses can be made. Firstly, while Henry theatrically demanded control, the reality is different. Cromwell's construction of a new financial system allowed him to gain control in all areas, including constructing legal documents and leading religious reforms including the dissolution of the monasteries. Secondly, this method of controlling faction can easily lead to a tyrannical, bully-type reputation to be posited against Henry; which in turn gives faction its significance in both the long and short term; an interpretation also supported by Scarisbrick who claims such instances build a non-selfless image of Henry, which is potentially harrowing for his reputation. Lipscombe argues the events of 1536, most specifically attitudes to Henry after Anne's factional downfall, cause Henry to be posthumously viewed as 'the greatest tyrant that ever was in England'; thus suggesting that both studies show faction posed a great threat in the sense of how Henry would be remembered. After all, the theatrical and cinematic portrayal of Henry has been dominated by this tyrannical, sex-lustred view; arguably constructed on this violent, factional and sex-rife view of his court. Hence the significance of faction remains strong when dealing with issues arising from Cromwell's - perhaps overly - affluent position in court and Tudor politics thus posing a serious threat to Henry in some way; be it his actual power of his posthumous reputation.

However, diverged from preceding ideas, G.W Bernard hypothesises that factional significance is non-existent as there was no formal faction in the Henrican court. Bernard argues Henry was not a pawn in factional manipulation; instead referring to faction amounting to nothing more than subjective political rivalry oppressed by Henry. Faction poses no serious threat, or even presence, in the Tudor court; instead Henry thoroughly remains as 'the dominant force in. the kings reformation'. Thus, none other had undue factional influence over the king. Ives however challenged stating 'it is hard to see how Anne Boleyn, Cranmer and Cromwell could occupy the positions that they did without having some influence'; instead Cromwell's influence over matters such as Anne Boleyn's downfall amounts to factional influence, as proven by Cromwell's own admission to Chaupys. This is supported by John Skips' influential Passion-Sunday sermon publically demeaning Cromwell as part of Boleyn's personal faction, a sermon which Bernard conveniently gives little significance to.

The problem for Bernard's revisionisms is the necessary consequences he welcomes: viewing Henry as a strong, powerful prince and the non-necessary innocence of Anne Boleyn's adultery, an argument founded on a 1545 poem by Lancelot De Carles allegedly providing credibility to Bernard's assertions. So if Bernard's opposing ideas on the absence of faction are to be upheld, the consequences of such must be logical and validated. However, here the clash is caused as very few historians are willing to accept this apparent dominance of Henry or the alleged guilt of Anne. This does not mean to assert that a historian's interpretations being alone makes them incorrect, but the problems and clashes contained within this over-arching assertion of non-faction pose a serious threat to the validity of the assertion. As Warnicke claims, Bernard's argument becomes nothing more than a 'dubious assertion' because of its constant challenge: what Bernard categorises Tudor clichés require more credit. Thus, while Bernard provides some interesting contrasts to the views proposed in this essay, the relative practical proof for such is minimal. Henry's controlling of the Anti-Katherine faction in 1543-6 lends some support, however the majority of cases threaten the stability of the assertion. Ives supports this argument suggesting that anti-factional arguments, especially Bernard's, methodology is 'to take evidence which he accepts appears to be in favour, and construct alternative interpretations one after another. stop "lets imagine that"'. This approach to history is not proper: all foundations should be grounded empirically and not presumptively. Succinctly, Bernard's assertion proposes too many counters and subsequent problems that must themselves be more firmly addressed before any weighty credibility is assigned to Bernard's views on faction.

Combined with previous case studies, the final will and testament of Henry VIII finalises the argument proposed in this essay. Henry's will is manipulated by the Seymour faction, to their advantage, through Paget and the dry stamp. Henry ordered that a 16-man equal council form around Edward, excusing Catholic extremists such as the Howards. However, Edward Seymour immediately broke the will appointing himself protector of the realm and Duke of Somerset. Henry had failed to realise the growing Seymour faction in the privy chamber, leaving them incredibly strong in 1547; meanwhile Henry was increasingly weak and vulnerable, primarily due to ill health. Henry ought to have previously prevented this factions as Seymour's manipulation of Henry's final testimony is a powerful and poignant proof of Henry's weakness. Thus not only was faction significant but it caused major political changes that had great repercussion on Henry's posthumous reputation and Edward's reign. The will of Henry VIII does not adequately represent his true desires, but rather aligns with political demands of the time, being manipulated fuelled by faction through use of the dry stamp before being totally disregarded by Seymour. Ives however challenged this view arguing factional influence on the will is built on circumstantial evidence; Seymour's manipulation is more concerned with his individual aims. Ives argues that Henry can be seen in control of the content of his will; namely the dry stamp was not used to manipulate the will and instead the will is the: 'last and most imaginative of the old king`s political devices'. Ives presents evidence of different versions of the will to suggest that it is likely Henry determined content; the dry stamp is simply a process-feature, rather than a proof of manipulation. Ives goes as far to suggest that the council proposed by Henry was his final fight against faction. However, Ives' argument rests on this presumption that Seymour individually desiring to challenge Henry is satisfactory. It seems wholly more realistic that Seymour would require substantial support to challenge the will; with those supporting amounting to this faction that Ives rejects. The very logic of the claim seems to challenge Ives' argument: in fact, faction is necessary in order for Henry's will to be challenged and manipulated so succinctly; the idea of one individual doing such in a spontaneous coup seems illogical considering the political powers at play. While this essay supports Ives on other matters, here straying from faction is mistaken. Starkey supports concluding that the wills challenge must come from a collective faction of 'other intelligences' who 'shaped it for other purposes'; by its completion it was a persona speaking 'of the King's servants more often than the King himself'. Starkey labels Seymour's 'group', as well as others, as a 'circle of manipulators' ready to undermine the king's authority. This challenge must have been planned and considered with the growing Seymour faction providing the most coherent argument as for its origin. Furthermore, even if conditionally accepting Ives' argument that Henry remained in control of his will, upon his death the Seymour faction readily pounce upon its clauses; regardless of the timing the pollution of Henry's will by faction seems inescapable.

In conclusion, the significance of faction in the Henrican court is unavoidable. The case studies chosen show the intense political influence faction could have as it caused the downfall of leading figures alongside a manipulation of Henry and, eventually, his will. The presence of faction is undeniable, and so is its influence. The arguments against this thesis, proposed by the likes of Bernard, do such with a glorification of Henry in mind. However, the reality is distinct: the accumulative amount of faction-significant cases leads to a quantitative rejection of what stands as a specifically empty claim that such formal faction was non-existent. To split hairs, as others have done, that faction need not be faction is itself a tautology: whatever remains has the same significance and characteristics as faction; and thus for the point of Ockham's Razor such being faction is the most suited assumption. The effect this faction has on the day-to-day business of court may be minimal, but when examining huge political and important events, faction plagues all that occurs at the Henrican court; it becomes almost like a bacteria that infects near everything and - however hard Henry and others may try - simply cannot be irradiated without reoccurrence. The significance of such a 'plague' becomes hard to ignore as it constantly shifts and diverts political agendas and concocts a masque of court; the downfall of Anne Boleyn becoming an epitome of the results of giving faction place to flourish.

2,197 words

Bibliography ANDERSON, A. 'Protest, Crisis and Rebellion: 1536-88' (Pearson: 2011) BERNARD, G.W. 'The Kings Reformation: Henry VIII and the remaking of the English church' (Yale University Press: 2005) BERNARD, G.W. 'Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions' (Yale University Press: 2011) BERNARD, G.W. 'The Fall of Wolsey Reconsidered'. Journal of British Studies (Vol. 35.3: 1996; pp.277-310) ELTON, G.R. 'England under the Tudors' (2nd edition; Cox & Wyman Ltd: 1974) ELTON, G.R. 'Reform and Reformation: England 1509-1588' (Edward Arnold: 1977) ELTON, G.R. 'The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative changes in the reign of Henry VIII' (Cambridge University Press: 1953) ELTON, G.R. 'Thomas Cromwell's Decline and Fall'. Cambridge Historical Journal (Vol. 10.2: 1951; pp.150-185) FREEMAN, T.S. 'A Tyrant for All Seasons: Henry VIII on Film'. Tudor and Stuarts on Film (ed. Doran, S; Palgrave: 2009; pp.30-45) GREGORY, P. 'The Other Boleyn Girl' (Scribner: 2001) IVES, E. 'Henry VIII's will: a forensic conundrum'. The Historical Journal (Vol. 35.4: 1992; pp. 779-804) IVES, E. 'Anne Boleyn on Trial Again'. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (Vol. 62.4: 2011; pp. 763-77) IVES, E. 'Faction in Tudor England' (History Association: 1979) IVES, E. 'The Fall of Anne Boleyn Reconsidered'. English Historical Review (Vol. 107: 1992; pp. 651-664) IVES, E. 'Will the Real Henry VIII Please Stand Up?' History Today (Vol. 58.2: 2006; pp.28-36) LIPSCOME, S. '1536: The Year that Changed Henry VIII' (Lion Books: 2006) MANTEL, H. 'Bring Up the Bodies' (Tertius Enterprises: 2012) SCARISBRICK, J.J. 'Henry VIII' (3rd edition; Eyre Metheun Ltd: 1969) SHEPHARD, R. 'Court Factions in Early Modern England'. The Journal of Modern History (Vol. 64.4: 1992; pp. 721-745) STARKEY, D. 'The English Court: from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War' (Longman: 1987) STARKEY, D. 'The Reign of Henry VIII: Personality and Politics' (George Philip: 1985) WARNICKE, R.M. 'The Fall of Anne Boleyn Revisited'. Oxford University Press (Vol. 108. 428:1993; pp.653-665) WEIR, A. 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' (Vintage: 1991) WEIR, A. 'Henry VIII: King and Court' (Vintage: 2001) WILLIAMS, C.H. 'English Historical Documents: 1485-1558' (Eyre & Spottiswoode: 1967)

Alternative Contemporary Sources: All are sourced from Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536, note 615 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536, note 876 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 16: 1540-1541, note 590 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 21 Part 2: September 1546-January 1547, note 634 (30th December 1546)