This in particular shows the extent on how Henry’s reign seemed to be undermined by his weak character to recover fast enough mentally to focus his full energy in discovering a different partner.
It took roughly four years for Thomas Cromwell, the architect of political reformation in the Privy Council and Henry’s close adviser for a number of years to find a wife to suite Henry, her name was Anne of Cleves (Weir 1991, pg 109). Anne of Cleves herself was never flatted by diplomats with regards of her beauty, even Henry’s own court painter Holbein commented only on her ‘honesty’ (Bingham 2011, pg 81), she was regarded as being quite uneducated and seemed not to enjoy the pleasures that Henry most admired, a somewhat imperfect partnership for a man who wanted a woman who had sex appeal, a youthful behaviour and a exciting nature. Alternatively however Ives (2007, pg 78) utterly disagrees with Bingham (2011, pg 81), as ‘historical portraits suggests that Anne was no less pleasing compared to his previous wives’, it is solely down to Anne’s lack of understanding and interest of the English court’s cultural behaviour (that Henry relished) that acted as a cold shower upon Henry.
So why did the marriage go ahead? The reason for that is Thomas Cromwell’s handy work; he was a man in a desperate situation who relied heavily for the marriage to succeed because of his increasing unpopularity within court and with the king himself. Anne belonged to a long line of family which successfully ruled a thriving and inspirational independent province in Germany which maintained good relations with Lutheran (Protestant) princes (Bingham 2011, pg 80). During this time England was completely isolated due to its recent break with Rome, militarily wise. Simply the marriage was a political alliance between England and the military strong province in Germany, this marriage would put England in a much stronger position as her enemies such as France and Spain would have to think twice before committing a war with England. This confirms to an extent that Henry’s reign was somewhat undermined by his advisers most notably Cromwell for the reason that he advised Henry to marry Anne solely for political aspects which in addition to was against Henry’s wishes, he wanted a wife that suited his needs personally. As Starkey (2009) argues, Henry fairly believed he was undoubtedly manipulated by Cromwell who used threatening facts about England’s isolation with Europe to convince Henry to marry Anne for Cromwell’s own political survival. Henry’s displeasure with Anne is made shown when Henry himself is recorded in stating:
“She is nothing so well as she was spoken of. If it were not for fear of making a ruffle in the world-that is, to be the means to drive her (Anne) brother into the hands of the Emperor- I would of never had married her”
(Starkey, Channel 4, 2009)
This supports the fact that Henry felt inclined to accept Cromwell’s advice for fear of war. Within a few months (Eakins 2007) Henry filed a divorce between him and Anne, for the reason in which he claimed she was not a virgin before their marriage, making it void.
However, although the marriage with Anne of Cleves was dreadfully embarrassing for King Henry in the face of Europe and ultimately undermined his rule strategically, Henry maintained his supreme authority within his own court as well as maintaining his hold on the Privy Council. He exercised his authority by executing Thomas Cromwell on the 28th July 1540 which was an undoubtedly popular move with his courtiers. With Thomas Cromwell’s head in the basket, Henry lavished supreme royal power like never before, suggesting possibly his authority had not been undermined or breached.
Katherine Howard
You would be forgiven in thinking that Henry rather fancied himself a trophy wife, who had the looks and probably not much of the brains. This is quite understandable, Henry not much wanted but needed a wife who was young, energetic and who could give him a new lease of life as ultimately Henry was now frail, fat and never participated in any type of physical activity, which ultimately damaged his significance as king. Not only that in 1540 Henry sat on an uncomfortable throne due to his lack of bearing sons.
King Henry and Katherine married secretly on the day Thomas Cromwell was executed. Katherine Howard a lady in waiting no older then sixteen years of age caught Henry’s eye before the divorce with the Anne of Cleves, with her sexy flirtatious nature and her vigorous attitude. As Starkey (2002, pg 102) clearly points out that Katherine was put forward to Henry by Cromwell’s enemies at court at the time, this is most certainly true as it was standing practice for rivals to emerge within the Tudor court. Visibly Katherine was a pawn sent by the courtiers of the ‘Howard family’ to grab Henry’s affections to create rewards and benefits for the family such as for the Duke of Norfolk, this indeed was no unusual sort of behaviour for people in court (Ives 2007, pg 79) as clearly identified in both Henry’s marriages with Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour. It can be argued by weighing these facts that evidently although King Henry VIII was shown to be supreme ruler of England’s political and religious make doings he was possibly in fact in someway a victim moreover, Henry himself was a puppet controlled by the newly established members of the Privy Council, as the William Howard School (2010) questions but this is mostly speculative opinion. More alternative interpretations are that although the Privy Council increased in authority Henry maintained a strong powerful position as Starkey supports (2009). It must be considered on how we distinguish events. As Starkey (2002, pg 103) follows on from this by pointing out that in due course it shows Henry’s ‘indecisiveness’ and unsuited performance for a king. This portrays that Henry’s reign to some extent was diluted by his marriage with Katherine Howard.
Obviously Henry was tremendously fond of Katherine as one courtier distinguished how he ‘caresses her more than he did the others’ (Ives 2007, pg81).In due course the marriage with Katherine Howard noticeably changed Henry’s perspective in addition to behaviour, for instance the number of executions slowed in the year 1541 (Starkey, 2009), Henry begun radical reforms (however small) in the North of England ‘in which (Sommerville, 2009) he promised the people who part took in the Pilgrimage of Grace’ by ‘travelling through major towns’ such as York (Ives 2007, pg81), this links in with aspects in war as James V of Scotland failed to meet Henry on his travels which worsened their relationship. Katherine seemed to have offered Henry his chance to relive his youthful chivalric way of life, as he was noted to begin trying to keep up with his new young bride by awakening by 6 for hunting till 10 and dancing at night (Bingham 2011, pg 83). Henry seemed to have transformed in becoming a much more alert and confident individual. Nonetheless as Hume (1889, pg 77) questions Katherine was more than happy to accept Henry’s love for his gifts as ‘the king had no wife who made him spend so much money in dresses and jewels as she did, and every day some fresh caprice’ and as Bingham (2011, pg 80) concludes on saying Henry was a man less appealing to Katherine, for he was old enough to be her father, bad tempered and was exceedingly obese, unquestionable this is reliable as all the sources support this. Indisputably Henry held an uncomfortable situation as he paraded his wife around who herself showed little loving compassion to Henry which he never realised, supporting Starkey’s (2002, pg 104) claim of Henry’s indecisiveness and futility.
Understatedly like most times, Henry’s marriage brought about an embarrassing conclusive which in the end can be argued to have brought disastrous consequences upon Henry’s position. As Ives (2007, pg 81) describes how Katherine was accused of sexual indulgence and adultery before and during her marriage with King Henry. She was investigated and interrogated by the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer who discovered by a full confession from the queen that she slept with no less then two people, including her ex-lover Francis Dereham and Henry’s own favoured servant Thomas Culpepper. This identifies a blunt embarrassing significance on Henry’s reign in 1542 since Thomas Culpepper, a man close and most favoured by the king who even ‘dressed the king on occasions’ (Wooding 2009, pg 23) committed sexual acts on the queen within the same households of his Majesty’s, after hearing this news Henry ‘wept in front of court’, this interpretation is very reliable because Starkey (2009) also supports this point. This exposes ultimately that Henry’s marriage with Katherine undermined his authority. Henry’s reaction to Katherine’s affairs is speculated by Weir (2008, pg 230) on how Henry put upon an act of braveness while in the public eye by ‘socialising with the ladies, as gay as ever’. However Weir (2008, pg 230) follows on to contradict herself by suggesting that Henry ‘could tolerate no company, locking himself in rooms and restlessly travelling to each of his lodging houses’; this suggests that Henry was showing intense signs of depression, which has been seen before after his third wife’s death supports that Henry’s deteriorating grasp on royal matters by his depression is most probable reliable and true. Katherine and along with her two lovers were tried and executed at the Tower of London, Katherine being Henry’s second wife who he had beheaded. Clearly Henry became directly depressive and distressed by Katherine’s betrayal; this is shown by Dr Starkey (2009) as he describes how Henry underlined a passage in his own personal bible after Katherine was executed. It read:
“For the lips of an harlot are a drop in honey comb and her throat softer than ale. But at the last, she’s as bitter as wormwood and as sharp as a two-edged sword”.
(Dr Starkey, Channel 4, 2009)
Ultimately this is undisputable evidence to support Henry suffered from depression as this piece of source that Starkey (2009) provides is primary and reliable. This concludes that the marriage between Henry and Katherine Howard was no more then lusts for personal gain and plunder for both Henry and Katherine, a somewhat embarrassing marriage for Henry as he was cheated by advisers and his own wife around him. In due course both Henry and Katherine used each other as puppets, pulling the strings of each other for their own interests, as the William Howard School (2010) speculates, which is supported by Starkey (2009).
Katherine Parr
In the fullness of time, Henry once again was a widower for a number of months until 12th July 1543 when he married the childless, twice widowed Katherine Parr (Ives 2007, pg 82). Porter’s (2010) investigation, which provides hard evidence but must be considered carefully, on Katherine Parr suggests that she was a woman of splendour, who had ‘intelligence and fortitude’, even though she favoured a man named Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley, she married Henry gracefully. This supports that she was sophisticatedly knowledgeable and she new her duty by marrying Henry, eventually as Starkey (2002, pg 105) argues Henry found the ideal suitor for his needs. This is publicized showing to be a difference in Henry’s attitudes, as Ives (2007, pg 83) follows on to express that Henry was looking for companionship and not looks, signifying his need for amity in addition to having someone to rely on in his present state of poor health. This point is most likely reliable and fact, as that has been shown with the Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard as they both were significantly much younger compared to Henry however Katherine Parr was in the same age bracket when she married Henry. Demonstrating most likely Henry married Katherine Parr for her elegance and partnership.
The account by Bingham (2011, pg 81) gives a concise description on Katherine’s manner as queen of England and as Henry’s wife. She gives an insight on how by the year of 1544 Queen Katherine developed into a nurse type figure for Henry, ‘moving out of her queenly apartments and establishing herself in a small room beside her husband’s bedchamber ready to comfort him whenever he needed her’. This image speculation of Katherine by Bingham (2011, pg 81) is mostly subjective opinion as the devoted nurse imagery had been popularised by the Victorian view of the time, which seems to have progressed to contemporary theories. A most reliable interpretation however in comparison is Porter’s (2010, pg 200) exceptionally fascinating insight on why Henry VIII’s marriage with Katherine Parr seemed to favour well in terms of royalty, ‘she had no intention of becoming a full time carer’, Porter’s (2010, pg 200) speculation is most reliable and trustworthy because it can be seen in Katherine’s appearance as queen in portraits and her behaviour after Henry’s death.
In comparison with both Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard, Katherine Parr had the image and attitudes of a queen which she exploited to get a true insight into King Henry. Likewise with Parr’s demeanour, she ticked all the boxes that Henry wanted for a queen. Porter (2010, pg 200) argues that Henry favoured and took pleasure in Katherine adapting to the ideal role of being queen by relishing in an expensive wardrobe (exactly as he treated Katherine Howard-‘a trophy wife’), Henry had no intention of a woman particularly his wife seeing him in a weak state as being confined to his bedchamber. That surely would undermine his propaganda image of being the absolute greatness English king, chosen by God himself (Chrisp 2003, pg 177).
Katherine seemed to have brought about stability in the royal household by the year 1543 ‘as a result of her gentle initiative’ (Wooding 2009, pg 230), she encouraged Henry to bring about a closer relationship between him and his three children; Mary, Elizabeth and Edward. This is most certainly true by the fact that Henry decided to sustain his royal heirs for his children (notably for Mary and Elizabeth), creating a more stable future Tudor royalty supporting Henry’s rule not becoming destabilized. A defection however is made known as Katherine herself was a devoted Protestant which ultimately was icy ground for a queen to uphold, as Henry conducted executions upon Protestants for blasphemies beliefs (Porter 2010, pg 202), however it could be questioned if this is speculated opinion. It is held that Henry could no longer be associated with a heretic who is claimed to be teaching the royal children of the importance of Lutheran beliefs (Wooding 2009, pg 230); this was questioned by the Privy Council most notably by Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester who also accused Thomas Cranmer of religious reshaping. Nevertheless Henry supported his wife but not her actions in interference with his Church and Parr’s writing of Protestant works, it would simply undermine the changes Henry made in religious reformation (Bingham 2011, pg 81), put plainly having a wife accused of being a ‘heretic’ put Henry in an unstable position. On the other hand however in direct contrast with Bingham (2011, pg 81) is Wooding’s (2009, pg 23) account on Henry VIII, in which she identifies that Henry’s religious outlook in 1543 was reflected with marrying Katherine Parr, in which he liked to discuss theological matters with her. Despite the fact that Henry’s wife was seen to be taking directive actions over him which would surely damage his reputation somewhat, a bonding relationship between king and queen politically as well as religiously is not a uncommon matter as made known with King Edward III (1312-1377) and his wife Philippa of Hainault (Mortimer) as well as King Henry VI (1421-1471) with his wife Margaret of Anjou.
Decisive evidence suggests that Katherine’s marriage with his majesty was overshadowed by Henry’s quickly increasing ill health with his frequent pain from ulcers slowly rotting flesh from his legs (Bingham 2011, pg 92). It seems clear that Henry soon became unfit to rule a Kingdom like England on his own; this shows the possibility of Katherine’s involvement with court matters. Evidently Katherine seemed like the queen that Henry should have had when he first came to the throne, and accordingly it has mixed results whether Katherine’s dangerous behaviour in her religious beliefs put Henry in an unstable position.
Chapter 3- A bloody matter: Henry’s Wars
King Henry VIII’s reign was undoubtedly surrounded by military conflict within and outside of his realm, which he ultimately favoured as king. As Ives (2007, pg 79) agrees Henry was a war monger who had been since his come to power on the 21st April 1509. Henry’s fascination with war can also be seen in his (left) own Psalter (Mallard 1539-40), a piece of biblical texts and manuscripts in which a Psalm was created for King Henry, in which a picture of David and Goliath is shown to be evident. For this sort of chronicle to be included in Henry’s own Psalter supports his fixation for military ideals and glory, such as Henry V gained at Agincourt in the Hundred Years’ War (Barker, 2005, pg10). This is supported by Ives (2007, pg 84) investigative source on Henry’s participation in war in the 1540s, as he claims that King Henry took a military approach to his policies for the reason that he wanted to quench his earlier desires ‘to re-open the Hundred Years’ War and achieve military glory’ in France while wielding not as much force upon Scotland in the north, it seems that maybe Henry grew concerned for his lack of military expeditions which glorified so much of previous English kings.
By the year 1540 came about England’s position in Europe and its foreign policy could not have been in such a worst state, because of its isolation with Rome and its aggressive political embankments with its most notable Catholic neighbour Scotland. As Woodings (2009, pg 24) agrees that England’s dire situation with military involvement did not come about until the year 1542 due to the reason that Henry’s uneasy ally Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire committed a war against Francis I, King of France. What must be understood is that England’s involvement in the war is exclusively Henry’s own matter (with little help from court), but why with France and Scotland, which showed little chance of success. Speculative theories include Henry’s policies were both the same about France and Scotland due to both nations’ history alliances together. Arguably another perception is the King’s obsession of unionising Britain, this links in with Henry’s declaration in 1541 of supreme authority over Ireland (Ives 2007, pg 84). Henry went to war for his own and national interests, conclusively victory in any war brings about vast rewards and brings about stability in political matters; however did Henry’s involvement with France and Scotland undermine his rule any way at all?
France
Consequently throughout history England and France have always been at war with each other. In fact when war broke out between Henry’s ally and France, he felt little desire to go to war with France, as supported by Wooding (2009, pg 24) as she claims Henry tirelessly held negotiations on the possibility of his daughter, Lady Mary, marrying a French Prince to maintain peace, however this proved unsuccessful, this is most probably speculation of opinion. In stark contrast is Sommerville’s (2009) claim in that Henry more than preferred to take full ‘advantage’ of this and declared war on France, mostly due to the reason of France entering discussions with Scotland about a possible alliance. Likewise with Sommerville’s (2009) account, Bingham (2011, pg 41) identifies that Henry wanted to take advantage of the chance to go to war with France because of his ‘long desired’ yearn to capture the town of Boulogne situated in the north of France. As Hub Pages (2010) exposes Henry VIII main priority was invading France to regain claimed lands which is supported by Wooding (2009, pg 261) as she claims Henry spent and sent more supplies to France than he maintained in the northern border with Scotland. Which Ives (2007, pg 84) clearly supports ‘France not Scotland appears to have been the major target’, this distinction is fact and not opinion because France offered more of a chance of financial and political benefits compared to Scotland. If Henry felt it was just to participate in a war with France he must have understood how very weak his resources were, with little chance of threatening Francis I as he used to do in 1513 and 1523 in which he had the traditional Anglo-Imperial alliances with Spain and the Netherlands which was broken when he divorced Katherine of Aragon and broke ties from Rome. As Wooding (2009, pg 265) clearly puts it, ‘Henry’s attempts to enhance his authority at home had seriously compromised his effectiveness abroad’. Alternatively there are arguments to counter the point that Henry was unprepared to fight a war abroad as Henry took months of preparation and he invaded France with a respected ‘42,000’ men at arms (Hub Pages 2010), clearly this argument suggests Henry was not unprepared for war as much as Wooding (2009, pg 265) speculates. This point however is rather overshadowed by Starkey (2002, pg 104) by alternatively suggesting that Henry had lack of supplies supporting his argument of Henry’s unprepared nature and lack of decisiveness Henry undermined his own control in the war.
What must not be forgotten as Wooding (2009, pg 265) stresses is that England in 1542 was in no stable position for war, because of financial troubles and the down trodden relationship with Charles V due to Henry’s ‘indecisiveness’ (Starkey 2002, pg 103) as king also by his breaking relations with the Catholic Church which isolated England. Following along with this Hub Pages (2010) exposes that the relationship with Henry and his ally was battered by Henry’s hesitancy in laying siege to settlements in northern France when the accepted target was France’s capital Paris, Henry himself stated that it was a vital strategic move for his army to sustain supplies.
After months of besiegement, the town of Boulogne was captured and giving to the hands of Henry and his army on September 1542, it was around this same date that Charles VI and Francis I signed a peace treaty ending the war (Ives 2007, pg 83). Henry’s exploits in France cost him close enough ‘2 million pounds – the equivalent of ten years’ normal government expenditure’ (Bingham 2011, pg 88) and not much to show for it, a loss of a major warship (Mary Rose) and just one captured town which soon became surrounded by a French army, however staggeringly it took the French eight years to recapture the town (Hub Pages 2010). After Henry received news that Francis I intended to seek revenge by invasion, Henry splashed out financially constructing a number of forts on the south cast of England adding to the money woes and debt. In addition to these financial troubles the war with France alone almost bankrupted the English crown, even though Henry’s campaign in France in1542 seemed to be futile he did nonetheless begin preparations for a second raid in 1546. However as Hub Pages (2010) expresses how Henry changed his mind, following on from this Hub Pages (2010) identifies how a historical writer named J. Scarisbrick (1968 pg 462-63) accounted that ‘perhaps the burden of war had crippled him; perhaps the desperate shortage of food which bad harvests brought in their train and his failure to raise victuals and enough munitions on the continent drove him to peace; perhaps Charles's evident intention to strike in Germany and thus ignore his erstwhile ally’ this is evidence towards Henry’s lack of willingness to participate in war in the year 1546. So why is Henry VIII’s French campaign classed as an all in all failure, which is supported by most historians? In conclusive simply Henry’s failure to maintain a reasonable good relationship with his ally, lack of funds and supplies in addition to Henry’s own lack of military intuition.
Scotland
Even supposing that Henry VIII mainly prioritised his militarily intentions in the north of France the Scottish campaigns were much more successful. As most historians agree, such as Ives (2007, pg 82), Henry had no intentions whatsoever upon Scotland compared to his actions in his French campaigns. Henry prioritised his dealings with the Scots in 1540 mainly by negotiations and threats; he succumbed in believing that his only son Prince Edward could be married of to the much younger Lady Mary, daughter of King James V of Scotland (Bingham 2011, pg 88-90) to unite the two countries, Henry practically expected complete obedience because of family ties with King James V being his nephew. Obviously Henry’s once great figurehead appearance seemed to have left him as James V along with Scottish men at arms raided the north of England practically untouched in defiance of Henry’s requests, this was shortly followed by an alliance between Scotland and France. This clearly exposes how Henry’s rule took a dramatic decline abroad for his lack of ability to succumb the Scottish easily.
However Henry’s lack of supreme authority to defeat Scotland by words was settled by swords. As Henry unwisely focused on how he would invade France he left the job of defeating his nephew with the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Howard, a strong supporter of the new found religion with Katherine Parr. As Bingham (2011, pg 90) describes the Duke of Norfolk’s military expedition in Scotland met with success, with a victory at the Battle of Solway in1542 against the poorly equipped Scots which was soon followed with the unexpected death of James V, leaving his infant daughter Mary as queen ruling a helpless Kingdom. Both Bingham (2011, pg 90) and Wooding (2009, pg 266) agree that at this time Henry had a perfect opportunity to uphold his authority in Scotland, yet he decided in favour of negotiations, possibly due to his lack of resources for his army who already had vast amounts of forces committed in France, this again supports Starkey’s (2002, pg 105) view of Henry’s unresolved decisions and constant mind changing attitudes. These actions were then followed by tedious events which created nothing more but England and Scotland’s relationship becoming abysmal, for example Henry’s wishes in having the town of Edinburgh sacked and burnt to the ground, this created nothing but Scottish defiance. All together this gives evidence to suggest that Henry’s intuition caused problems in creating difficulties for his reign. By the years of 1545 and 1546 the king’s worsening health made him less ambitious in military actions forcing him to conduct peace talks with both Scotland and France.
Conclusion- The King is dead: What has been discussed and found
King Henry died on the 28th January 1547 at the age of 55 in the palace of Whitehall. He was buried in the Lady Chapel, Windsor next to his third wife Jane Seymour as he requested.
This dissertation project has cautiously evaluated different historical aspects by dissimilar individuals: by using examples and comparisons.
As the reader of this dissertation you have explored different aspects and events in Henry VIII’s last three marriages and military expeditions on how these undermined his rule in any sort of way. For example how political interference with the marriage of Anne of Cleves caused instability in the crown and also how Henry’s military unawareness created problems for the throne.
Arguably this dissertation has caused mixed results to an extent. It is possible to give evidence for and against different possibilities whether Henry VIII’s reign was destabilized at all. For instance Henry’s last three marriages brought about some events which were embarrassing for the royal crown, such as Anne’s uninterested ability within court, Howard’s flirtatious and adulterous nature and Katherine Parr’s ‘heretic’ values. However Henry maintained a strong powerful figure within his own court, as shown by his courtiers’ unwillingness to express damming point of views. Along with this Henry’s involvement in war also undermined his rule by the weak position England upheld within Europe and his poor decisions as military leader. France ultimately was in a much stronger military position compared to England, France upheld more allies due to its connection with other Catholic European states.
To conclude this dissertation mainly found out that Henry himself undermined his own rule by his lack of decisiveness when considering marriage and planning out military expeditions. Henry’s reputation within his own court full of his personal advisers seemed to be unchanged; however Henry’s appearance abroad was more affected negatively due to his own actions. Put simply, Henry made wrong decisions which ultimately created consequences upon his own throne, for which most sources support this in some way. Although aspects of wives and war undermined Henry VIII’s rule in his last years as King in 1540-47, Henry contributed more to undermining his own authority due to his own decisions, as supported by the historian Starkey (2002-2009) continually. For you as a reader may get an insight from this project on how the factors link together to support this point.
This dissertation has explored a different perspective and insight on Henry’s last seven years as king. For obvious reasons of the short amount of time there is most definitely room for different perspectives to argue or follow on from this investigation, such recommendations would be to visit archives which contain primary and reliable sources of information. Such suggestions mainly could be to explore a more in depth study on political, religious and social matters in Henry’s reign and also to explore more recognised events outside this dissertations boundary of 1540 to 1547. What would also be a good implication for future insightful and interesting research would do further work in learning Henry’s contribution to England after his death which would open wider sources and perspectives.
Evaluation
I thoroughly enjoyed the time I have taken to complete this Extended Qualification, I feel extremely lucky to have explored so many exciting and inspiring texts from a number of historians. The reason why I based a historical context to discuss in my dissertation is because I have a great interest and captivation of the subject. Also it is my intention to carry on to higher education to study a BA hons in History so I am hoping by learning how to evaluate historical sources and to compare them together will give me the necessary skills for working at a degree level.
I felt that I have taken the time to do a fair amount of research on my chosen subject from a variety of sources such as books, web pages and documentaries. The title in question has been answered with exploring a variety of interpretations which I feel I have come up with a clear and insightful conclusion which I believe I have had with reasonable success with. I found it somewhat harder in trying to link sources together in comparison, however over time I felt more confident in my research skills to link sources together which I am extremely proud about. Also no matter how much I wanted to I tried to not to discuss off topic events which did not relate to my chosen question, but I felt I made do by maintaining my organisational skills I keeping on track with the matter in question.
Henry VIII’s reign has so many sources, accounts and foundations available because it is such a widely discussed subject which is researched by so many individuals. I felt that I not only gave you as the reader full factual scene on Henry’s progression as king but I also gave you arguments which supported by sources and conclusive evidence to sustain this, I did find it difficult not to trail of into a timeline/storyline way of writing as I was unsure what to write, but I felt I directed myself of this to a certain degree. Having the chance to part take in this Extended Project programme to write a dissertation has given me the courage in myself and the discipline to help me to write any independent pieces of work in the future either in education or the workplace.
I felt my chosen title and my chapter ideas were very good and suited my style of writing, however sometimes I begun to dread writing certain points as unclear as I wanted to, but I feel I maintain the important aspects in my essay. I am a little disappointed that my investigation did not come out with new and distinctive points in my conclusion, but I feel it has made me understand more of the importance of evaluating arguments from sources. All in all I feel extremely content on how my dissertation seemed to fall in place and link in together and I felt very pleased for my exploration of sources written by successful historians.