“Henry did not face a genuine threat to his position as King from 1485-99.” Explain why you agree or disagree with this view. [25 marks] I find I partly disagree with the statement. Although it’s true that Henry VII was able to overcome all of the major threats to his reign during this period of time, and some of these threats were not as major as others - that does not necessarily mean any of the events were not dangerous enough to jeopardise Henry’s position as King. Notably, Perkin Warbeck’s ability to gain support from many royals around Europe put Henry into a position where he could likely be usurped, had Henry not been smart with his foreign relations, and had the imposter had sufficient military support in order to successfully land in England. It’s important to understand that Henry’s position started off as fairly insecure - primarily due to his lineage being from a second marriage, and from the maternal line - which means he was very susceptible to opposition that could easily threaten his position if he did not overcome these crises. There were many Yorkists that rejected his claim, as well as men with …show more content…
This is what set him apart from other pretenders to the Crown, whom Henry would not see as a major threat, simply due to them being easy to eliminate. While outside England, Henry had no way to destroy the potential threat that Warbeck posed, giving the pretender the ability to gain support from monarchs and courtiers. Even more notably, one of Warbeck’s conspirators was the Lord Chamberlain himself, Lord Stanley. The fact that Stanley headed the royal household procures the implication that Henry was facing a very real, immediate threat, which - had Stanley been successful - could have destroyed his position as