However when analysing these sources it is important to consider the nature origin and purpose of the source. Source 4 is quoting a servant of Wolsey George Cavendish who was not privy to Wolsey’s political power or action but was merely a personal companion and thus would wish to create a grand image for his employer and exaggerate his strength this significantly limits the reliability of the source. Yet Source 6 is directly from Henry VIII and thus flawlessly demonstrates the king’s opinion regarding the power of Wolsey and is the most reliable in determining whether Henry was surrendering his power.
Furthermore when putting the sources into context through own knowledge we know that sources into context through own knowledge we know that Source 6 is particularly apt in demonstrating Henry VIII’s surrendering of power as Henry VII gave Wolsey increasing power over he nobles and Lords through the Star Chamber. Even more so Source 4’s claim that Henry surrendered his power is supported by the fact that Henry gave Wolsey the power to unjustly arrest without trial those who opposed him as he did with Polydore Vergil. This power was usually reserved only for the King demonstrating a further yielding of power.
However Source 5 disagrees with the statement and contradicts Sources 4 and 6. It states that ‘the ultimate source of power was the king’ this illustrates that although Henry surrendered much power regarding matters of state he didn’t surrender the ultimate power of kingship. Thus with his power of monarchy the King could easily take Wolsey’s power from him.
Yet again when analysing this source we must carefully consider its nature origin and purpose. The source was written in a history textbook and thus the knowledge would be well researched and factual. However being a revisionist historian John Lotheringon would have a bias towards the revisionist viewpoint. However due to the sources main purpose to inform it remains quite reliable.
Moreover when we bring the source into contrast with own knowledge it is easy to demonstrate and reinforce the disagreements the source holds. Henry VIII did not just keep only Wolsey by his side and had many advisors such as Thomas Cromwell who would have contested whole surrender of power to Wolsey. This supports the statement that the source makes ‘However he lacked the intimate daily contract the king shared with his minions’ this demonstrates that with the large council of the King power was heavily divided and could never truly have been wholly surrendered to Wolsey.
Furthermore the source states he could not achieve the true support of the king as ‘he lacked intimate daily contact… among the nobility’ and considering the disdain the nobility held towards Wolsey due to his tax laws and laws on enclosures meant that Wolsey could never have the full support of his nobles.
On the other hand the king wanted glory but didn’t want to deal with state. Considering this it supports Source 6 where Henry describes writing about state matters as ‘tedious’ clearly showing he would much rather hand off power towards Wolsey so he could do little but gain glory. Moreover the youth and inexperience of the King meant he was under prepared and eager to offload responsibility as stated in Source 5 Wolsey was willing to do so ‘how shrewdly Wolsey judged the young king’
In conclusion to say that Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey is somewhat of an over exaggeration. The ultimate power of the monarchy remained in Henry’s hands and his large council meant power was never held by just one of his subjects/ councillors. However he was willing and quick to surrender matters of state to Wolsey due to his own disinterest in the subject. In essence Henry VIII surrendered a large bulk of power to Wolsey but kept the majority of power to himself and created a large split of power between the other nobles.
by
johncussonshotmailcom (student)
