‘The king’s ministers served Henry VIII well, but served themselves even better.’

Paragraph 1: Wolsey’s Ambition and Self-Interest in Early Government (1515–1529)

Point:
Wolsey was an effective and capable minister who managed royal administration efficiently — but his career advancement and personal wealth accumulation show he prioritized his own status alongside royal service.

Explanation:
Wolsey handled nearly every aspect of government, from law courts to foreign diplomacy. Yet while he streamlined governance and expanded justice access, he used his influence to elevate himself socially and politically, often blurring the line between serving the king and serving his own interests.

Evidence #1:

  • Effective service: Wolsey oversaw financial reforms (e.g. national tax assessments) and expanded justice through the Court of Star Chamber.

  • Self-service: He lived lavishly, amassed wealth disproportionate even to his station, and built Hampton Court Palace (later gifted to Henry), reflecting his ambition and ego.

  • Political dominance: His attempt to sideline rivals through the Eltham Ordinances (1526) shows a desire to consolidate personal power.

Historical Concepts:

  • Cause and Consequence: Wolsey’s rise was caused by Henry’s disinterest in daily governance; the consequence was the emergence of a “ministerial kingship” where Wolsey appeared more powerful than the monarch.

  • Similarity and Difference: Like other royal servants, Wolsey fulfilled his duties, but his unprecedented personal wealth and arrogance distinguished him from his predecessors.

  • Change and Continuity: While he worked within traditional structures, Wolsey’s dominance marked a shift from conciliar government to one dominated by a single minister.

Paragraph 2: Cromwell’s Role in the Reformation — Service or Strategy? (1532–1540)

Point:
Cromwell effectively served Henry by engineering the break from Rome and strengthening royal power — but he used the opportunity to pursue his own religious and political agenda.

Explanation:
Cromwell’s legal skill and reformist ideology helped deliver the king’s divorce and the establishment of royal supremacy. But his manipulation of Parliament and use of religious reform also allowed him to undermine rivals and expand his own power base.

Evidence #2:

  • Effective service: Cromwell pushed through the Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) and Act of Supremacy (1534), giving Henry legal control over the English Church.

  • Self-service: He orchestrated the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536–1542) — enriching the Crown, yes, but also enriching himself and his allies.

  • Downfall: His ambition in arranging the Anne of Cleves marriage (1540) — intended to cement a Protestant alliance — backfired and led to his execution, highlighting how far he pushed his own agenda.

Historical Concepts:

  • Turning Point: Cromwell’s reforms marked a turning point in Church-State relations, establishing royal supremacy but also centralizing power in his own hands.

  • Cause and Consequence: Henry’s need for a divorce caused Cromwell’s rise; the consequence was a revolution in governance and the growth of Cromwell’s personal influence.

  • Short and Long Term: In the short term, Cromwell served Henry’s aims; in the long term, his reforms changed England’s religious and political structure — often in ways that suited his vision.

Paragraph 3: Factionalism and Ministerial Self-Preservation in Henry’s Final Years (1540–1547)

Point:
After Cromwell’s fall, the return of conciliar government allowed ministers to serve Henry’s interests — but increasingly, they focused on advancing their factions and securing their positions as the king’s health declined.

Explanation:
Ministers continued to execute royal policy, particularly regarding succession and war, but court politics became dominated by infighting and manipulation — as ministers sought to survive and benefit from the inevitable royal transition.

Evidence #3:

  • Factional service: Edward Seymour and the reformist faction supported the Protestant cause and sought to influence Prince Edward’s future reign. Norfolk and Gardiner represented Catholic conservatives.

  • Self-service: Both factions used the king’s declining health to position themselves for dominance post-Henry — seen in Norfolk’s fall in 1546 and Seymour’s rise.

  • Royal manipulation: Even in his weakened state, Henry controlled appointments and played factions against each other to preserve his authority.

Historical Concepts:

  • Similarity and Difference: Unlike earlier ministers like Wolsey and Cromwell who dominated individually, later ministers served in factions — but still prioritized self-interest.

  • Short and Long Term: In the short term, factionalism fulfilled Henry’s needs (succession, war), but in the long term, it sowed instability for Edward VI’s reign.

  • Cause and Consequence: Henry’s declining health caused a power vacuum; the consequence was increased factionalism and strategic self-serving behavior by his ministers.