How accurate is it to say that Lambert Simnel was a far greater threat than Perkin Warbeck to Henry VII’s hold on the throne? (20 marks)

PEEL Paragraph 1 — Simnel = greater military threat

• Point: Simnel was more dangerous because he forced Henry into a decisive military confrontation.

• Evidence: 1487 Battle of Stoke; 2,000 German mercenaries from Margaret of Burgundy + Irish troops under Kildare; led by Earl of Lincoln.

• Explain: This was a genuine attempt to overthrow Henry only two years into his reign, when his authority was still insecure. A defeat would likely have ended the Tudor dynasty.

• However: Warbeck never raised an army capable of challenging Henry in open battle.

• Link: Simnel posed the greater immediate military threat.

PEEL Paragraph 2 — Warbeck = greater diplomatic threat

• Point: Warbeck was more dangerous diplomatically because he gained recognition from major European powers.

• Evidence: Supported by Charles VIII (France), Margaret of Burgundy, Maximilian (HRE), and James IV of Scotland; married Catherine Gordon.

• Explain: This forced Henry into expensive diplomacy (e.g., Treaty of Étaples 1492, Truce of Ayton 1497) and undermined his legitimacy abroad for nearly a decade.

• However: Foreign backing never translated into a successful invasion or serious domestic uprising.

• Link: Warbeck’s diplomatic threat was significant but less immediately destabilising than Simnel’s military challenge.

PEEL Paragraph 3 — Simnel = stronger noble backing

• Point: Simnel was more threatening because he attracted high‑ranking Yorkist nobles with real claims.

• Evidence: Led by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln — Richard III’s designated heir.

• Explain: Lincoln’s involvement gave Simnel credibility and experienced leadership, making the rebellion a coordinated Yorkist attempt to reverse Bosworth.

• However: Warbeck lacked major English noble support and relied mostly on foreign courts and minor conspirators.

• Link: Simnel’s noble backing made him a more credible claimant and a more immediate danger.

PEEL Paragraph 4 — Warbeck = longer-lasting persistence threat

• Point: Warbeck posed a prolonged threat that repeatedly tested Henry’s security.

• Evidence: Active 1491–97; attempted landings in Kent (1495), Ireland (1497), and Cornwall (1497).

• Explain: His persistence forced Henry to invest heavily in coastal defence, intelligence networks, and diplomacy, showing the regime’s ongoing vulnerability.

• However: None of Warbeck’s attempts gained serious traction, and he never came close to a decisive confrontation.

• Link: Warbeck’s longevity created sustained pressure, but not the acute danger Simnel posed.

Conclusion

• Simnel = greater immediate threat due to a pitched battle, noble backing, and Henry’s early fragility.

• Warbeck = greater long-term diplomatic and persistent threat, but lacked military credibility.

• Overall: Simnel was the greater threat, but not “far” greater, because Warbeck exposed Henry’s vulnerabilities over a much longer period.