DURING THE PERIOD 1539-53, FACTIONAL RIVALRY DID LITTLE TO

UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF THE MONARCHY. HOW FAR DO YOU AGREE

WITH THIS STATEMENT?
During the period 1539 to 1553, which covered the later years of Henry VIIIs
reign and the entire reign of Edward VI, it can be seen that factional rivalry did
occur to a large extent. The extent to which factional rivalry can be seen to have
done little to undermine the authority of the monarchy will be explored by looked at
the fall of Cromwell in 1540, the conservative plots against Cranmer and Catherine
Parr and the role of Protectors in the reign on Edward VI alongside his young age. It
can be argued that whilst factional rivalry was rife during the reigns of Henry VIII
and Edward, the authority of the monarchy remained. Henry was able to play off the
factions from one another as seen in the plots against Cranmer and Parr; whilst
Edward in spite of his young age still had the final say in matters concerning his
realm. Yet it can also be argued that this was not always the case, as is evident in
the fall of Cromwell and Somersets autocratic rule. This would therefore suggest
that perhaps factional rivalry did undermine the authority of the monarchy to an
extent.
The conservative faction was lead by duke of Norfolk and Stephen Gardiner.
They were orthodox in religion and believed that Cromwell had gone too far in his
reforms. After disappointing marriage to Anne of Cleves, orchestrated by Cromwell,
Norfolk takes this opportunity to get rid of Cromwell and advance conservatism.
Norfolk, as smith argues poisoned the Kings mind against Cromwell. Norfolk had
discovered that in the spring of 1539, Cromwell was protecting Protestants that had
been officially denounced as heretics by Lord Lisle, the deputy of Calais. Cromwells
association with the reformers proved to be the nail in the coffin for him. He as
arrested at a Council meeting on 10 June 1540 and was charged with Heresy and
Treason (King was persuaded of this by Norfolk). He was beheaded on Tower Hill on
28 July, after he had provided the necessary evidence for Henry to obtain an
annulment from Anne of Cleves (part of Norfolks plan to further enhance
conservatism). This Shows Henry being manipulated by the conservative faction as
exemplified by his marriage to Catherine Howard (conservative) on the very same

day of Cromwells execution. Cromwell had been Henrys most faithful advisor and
was missed greatly by Henry after his execution. In this way it can be seen that
factional rivalry did undermine the authority of the Monarch as Henry was no longer
making autonomous decisions based upon his own will but was being influenced by
the conservatives. However, this manipulation does not necessarily mean that
Henrys authority was undermined. The factional rivalry occurred in the quest on
either side to gain closer access to the king. As such, the authority of either faction
was being undermined by the other, not Henrys authority. The fall was of Cromwell
evil advisor not of the King. The attack is never directed at the king but at those
around him i.e. those that make up either the conservative or reformist faction.
It can be argued that factional rivalry did not undermine the authority of the
monarch, particularly during the reign of Henry VIII, because he played both sides
off of each other and demonstrates how factional rivalry sought not to decrease the
authority of the monarch, but to gain it. This struggle for Henrys approval can be
seen in the plot against Cranmer in 1543, where Gardiner and the conservative
faction presented Henry with evidence against Cranmer that suggested heresy.
Henry agreed that Cranmer should be seized; however, upon arrival Cranmer
presented a ring to the council that indicated that Cranmer had henrys full support.
This event is an example of Henry manipulating and reprimanding the conservative
faction and it is possible to argue from this event that either Henry had learned not
to allow another faithful servant to all victim to factional intrigue (Anderson and
Moffatt) or that he wanted send a clear message to the factions, that he would not
tolerate division when he was preparing for war against France. The fact that Henry
had put Cranmer in charge of the very investigation that was supposed to unseat
him shows that Henrys authority engulfed factional rivalry, instead of being lost
within it. Furthermore, this manipulation is also seen in the plot against Catherine
Parr in 1546, where Norfolk presented evidence of Catherines heretical views and
henry agreed to put Thomas Wriothesley in charge of the investigation. However,
Henry alerted Catherine Parr to the danger and as a result Thomas Wriothesley and
his men from the conservative faction were thrown out of the chamber when they
arrived to arrest her. Again, this shows how the king played off the two sides against
each other, demonstrating how the rivalry did not undermine his authority as he

was still able to manipulate political and religious divisions. Ultimately, these events
suggests that factional rivalry was the struggle for the Kings approval and therefore
the rivalry did not have the aim to undermine the very authority which they were
seeking to gain on their side.
We also have to consider faction under Edward and whether it undermined
his authority. Edwards young age had a considerable impact on this as his protector
had a large influence on the decisions that were made, however the protector was
still under the kings control and this is exemplified by the fall of Somerset whos was
fall was attributed to the decision made by Edward after being unhappy with
Somersets decisions over his spending. Although it could be argued that faction did
have some role in this decision and thus could at some points have undermined the
monarch. This could be seen to some extent during the fall of Somerset due to the
influence of Northumberland on Edwards decision. Northumberland was playing for
a gain of his own political power and succeeded taking the role of lord protector
after Somerset fell from power. Although Edward had the final say it is clear that his
decision was influenced by faction and factional rivalries. However was the monarch
really undermined? He was influenced by faction, not necessarily undermined, but
was likely to have made the decision anyway due to his own qualms with Somerset
therefore it is reasonable to say that factional rivalry did little to undermine the
monarch.
In conclusion, during Henry, attacks or undermining was never directed at
the king, merely to those around him, the king himself was dishing the power and
people wanted to find favor with him not undermine him. In terms of faction attacks
are directed at the opposite faction not the king and henry did well in manipulating
each faction against the other showing a comprehensive command of his subjects
not being manipulated by either one. Faction was comprehensively different under
Edward, due to his age he could be easily influenced but he held his own against
the factional rivalries of his reign and was not undermined by those around him with
their own factional motives.