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

2. 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

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

4. 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

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

6. Look at essays using presenter and red pens.

7. “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….

8. (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….

9. 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

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

11. “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

12. 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