Using your understanding of the historical context, assess the value of this
source to a historian studying the role and in uence of Cardinal Wolsey in
government (10 marks)
Source A asserts that Wolsey, due to his in uence and ambitions, had many adversaries in court.
The ‘government of Wolsey’ implies he had a higher role than Henry VIII. Polydore Vergil
comments that while his initial intentions of rendering justice for the common-good were
righteous, he was corrupted by his arrogance. This source is a private letter to Andrea Ammonio
(an Italian cleric) written by Polydore Vergil, which was intercepted by authorities- it is possible
that the writer’s opinion of Wolsey in a con dential letter was more resistant to royal censorship,
so more genuine and reliable. Despite this, its credibility is eroded by Vergil’s strong bias against
Wolsey. The tone of the letter is aggressive, hostile and mocking. It is signi cant to note that
Wolsey imprisoned Vergil in April 1515 after writing this letter and not before, meaning his
antipathy towards Wolsey was present even before that event. This indicates his judgement of him
is less clouded by any personal grudges he might have held against Wolsey after he was freed at
the end of 1515. The purpose of this letter was to express his personal feelings for the King and
Wolsey to possibly an intimate friend (Vergil was an Italian ambassador in the Vatican).
Source A is valuable in demonstrating that Cardinal Wolsey indeed had a signi cant role in
government. Vergil’s resentment of him appears to be largely based on his in uence in Parliament,
as he ‘undertook all o ces of state by himself’. His victories at Therouanne, Tournai and the
Battle of Spurs in 1513 made him indispensable to Henry VIII. In fact, the Venetian ambassador
Giustinani told Francis I of France that ‘[King Henry] left the cares of state to the Cardinal’, which
shows the sovereignty that Wolsey had in court from the early years in his career. in 1515 he
became Lord Chancellor thus Head of Henry’s Privy Council, making him the second most
powerful man in Court after the King. He also organised the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520, a
summit meeting between Henry and Francis I. Furthermore, Vergil’s claim that he was hated by
everyone and had many opponents in court can be con rmed. It is illustrated in many of his
actions: he sent servants abroad if they were too close to the king, secured the Gentlemen of the
Chamber’s expulsion from court in 1519 and allegedly participated in the execution of the Duke of
Buckingham. His hostile relationship with Anne Boleyn, who was seeking to replace Wolsey’s role
by being the king’s new con dante, reinforces this view. Lastly, it can be argued that Wolsey was
indeed ‘arrogant and ambitious’. His ambition is corroborated by his wealth, which made him the
second wealthiest man in England and allowed him to build the palaces of Hampton Court and
White Hall. He also had many titles such as Archbishop of York, Cardinal and bishop of many
places. Nevertheless, the claim that he was a conceited man could be supported by Giustiniani, a
Venetian ambassador writing that Wolsey used to say ‘His majesty will do so and so’, then ‘We
shall do so and so’, then ‘I shall do so and so’.
On the other hand, the source is of limited value due to the bias of the author: his negative
perception of Wolsey perhaps exaggerates his bad character traits, and in an attempt to depict
ffi fi fifl fifl fi fl fi
source to a historian studying the role and in uence of Cardinal Wolsey in
government (10 marks)
Source A asserts that Wolsey, due to his in uence and ambitions, had many adversaries in court.
The ‘government of Wolsey’ implies he had a higher role than Henry VIII. Polydore Vergil
comments that while his initial intentions of rendering justice for the common-good were
righteous, he was corrupted by his arrogance. This source is a private letter to Andrea Ammonio
(an Italian cleric) written by Polydore Vergil, which was intercepted by authorities- it is possible
that the writer’s opinion of Wolsey in a con dential letter was more resistant to royal censorship,
so more genuine and reliable. Despite this, its credibility is eroded by Vergil’s strong bias against
Wolsey. The tone of the letter is aggressive, hostile and mocking. It is signi cant to note that
Wolsey imprisoned Vergil in April 1515 after writing this letter and not before, meaning his
antipathy towards Wolsey was present even before that event. This indicates his judgement of him
is less clouded by any personal grudges he might have held against Wolsey after he was freed at
the end of 1515. The purpose of this letter was to express his personal feelings for the King and
Wolsey to possibly an intimate friend (Vergil was an Italian ambassador in the Vatican).
Source A is valuable in demonstrating that Cardinal Wolsey indeed had a signi cant role in
government. Vergil’s resentment of him appears to be largely based on his in uence in Parliament,
as he ‘undertook all o ces of state by himself’. His victories at Therouanne, Tournai and the
Battle of Spurs in 1513 made him indispensable to Henry VIII. In fact, the Venetian ambassador
Giustinani told Francis I of France that ‘[King Henry] left the cares of state to the Cardinal’, which
shows the sovereignty that Wolsey had in court from the early years in his career. in 1515 he
became Lord Chancellor thus Head of Henry’s Privy Council, making him the second most
powerful man in Court after the King. He also organised the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520, a
summit meeting between Henry and Francis I. Furthermore, Vergil’s claim that he was hated by
everyone and had many opponents in court can be con rmed. It is illustrated in many of his
actions: he sent servants abroad if they were too close to the king, secured the Gentlemen of the
Chamber’s expulsion from court in 1519 and allegedly participated in the execution of the Duke of
Buckingham. His hostile relationship with Anne Boleyn, who was seeking to replace Wolsey’s role
by being the king’s new con dante, reinforces this view. Lastly, it can be argued that Wolsey was
indeed ‘arrogant and ambitious’. His ambition is corroborated by his wealth, which made him the
second wealthiest man in England and allowed him to build the palaces of Hampton Court and
White Hall. He also had many titles such as Archbishop of York, Cardinal and bishop of many
places. Nevertheless, the claim that he was a conceited man could be supported by Giustiniani, a
Venetian ambassador writing that Wolsey used to say ‘His majesty will do so and so’, then ‘We
shall do so and so’, then ‘I shall do so and so’.
On the other hand, the source is of limited value due to the bias of the author: his negative
perception of Wolsey perhaps exaggerates his bad character traits, and in an attempt to depict
ffi fi fifl fifl fi fl fi
