Pretenders and Foreign Policy L.O. to develop an understanding of how the issue of pretenders effected Foreign Policy by planning an essay.

Margaret Duchess of Burgundy John De La Pole Lambert Simnel Earl of Lincon Earl of Warwick Margaret Duchess of Burgundy Burgundy Yorkshire Battle of Stoke Earl of Kildare Read p46 – 48 The Early Tudors, SHP Cumbria Ireland Henry VII

Assessing the threat of the pretenders L.O. to assess the threat of the pretenders by planning an essay. Autonomous – alone, by yourself, independent.

Earl of Linclon Edward IV Richard III John de la Pole White Rose House of York Battle of Stoke Edmund de la Pole Earl of Suffolk Lambert Simnel Shipwreck Maximillian Isabella of Castille Philip Holy Roman Empire Burgundy

Who was the greatest threat? Not a threat Simnel Warbeck Pole

Look at essays using presenter and red pens.

“Pretenders to the throne posed a serious threat to Henry’s reign “Pretenders to the throne posed a serious threat to Henry’s reign.” TWE do you agree with this statement? AGREE DISAGREE Lambert Simnel posed a serious threat to Henry’s reign. Perkin Warbeck posed a serious threat to Henry’s reign. Edmund de la Pole posed a serious threat to Henry’s reign. The threat posed by Simnel was not serious. The threat posed by Warbeck was not serious. The treat posed by Pole was not serious. In conclusion….

(Furthermore Lambert Simnel was a threat to Henry’s reign because….. Evidence to support this is that… This meant that … Therefore….) Lambert Simnel did not pose a great threat to Henry’s reign because… Evidence to support this is …. This meant that…. Therefore…. Furthermore Lambert Simnel was a not threat to Henry’s reign because….. Perkin Warbeck posed a great threat to Henry’s reign because… Furthermore Perkin Warbeck was a threat to Henry’s reign because….. Perkin Warbeck posed a great threat to Henry’s reign because…. Furthermore Perkin Warbeck was not a threat to Henry’s reign because….. John de la Pole posed a great threat to Henry’s reign because… Furthermore John de la Pole was a threat to Henry’s reign because….. Furthermore John de la Pole was not a threat to Henry’s reign because….. In conclusion….

Word bank Constraints Subsequently Consequently Limits Inherent contradictions Divisions Conversely Exacerbate Catalyst Accelerate Transition Scale Support Political opposition Threat of pretenders Pupet Pawn Fulcrum Tool Fundamental Partial Substantial Therefore Overall Long term/short term Trigger Grand scheme To conclude In summary However As a result SPERM Long term/Short term The most significant Crisis of legitimacy Exacerbated Catalyst Undermined Henry’s dynastic claim Inextricably linked Domestic instability Power base Broad base of support

Create a timeline of Henry’s reign. Include battles Marriages Financial policies Anything else???

“Pretenders to the throne posed a serious threat to Henry’s reign “Pretenders to the throne posed a serious threat to Henry’s reign.” TWE do you agree with this statement? AGREE DISAGREE

Evidence to support source A Evidence to support source B For all of these reasons, then – strategic, dynastic, commercial, religious – Tudor England was never able to cut loose from continental entanglements and relapse into a merely passive insularity. Yet her comparative weakness always made such entanglements dangerous. It called for the highest skill and circumspection in her rulers whenever they had to join in the political rivalries of the continent. R.B.Wernham, Before the Armada, 1966, p.22 It has been fashionable among English historians to say that England, at almost any time from 1485 to 1588, was a ‘little country’, ‘scarcely more than a third-rate power’, ‘about on a level with Portugal and Demark.’ This is one form of Anglo-Saxon understatement. It is true that in wealth and population England counted fourth among Western powers, though it counted ahead of all but its three big rivals by a respectable margin…At the same time, by the loss of its dependencies, England had gained freedom of diplomatic manoeuvre. Secure behind its seas, England could now take as much or as little of any war as it liked. No commitment was more that tentative, no alliance irrevocable, and at each new shuffle in the diplomatic game the other players had to bid afresh for England’s friendship or neutrality. G.Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 1955, p.122 Evidence to support source A Evidence to support source B