Summary Of From Feud To Faction By Eric Ives

Both Eric Ives’ ‘Faction in Tudor England’ and David Starkey’s ‘From Feud to Faction’ explore Tudor politics through the hiarcal figures of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Particularly, closely examining faction and its domination in the political system of Tudor England Politics. Yet, prominently both highlight the great controversy and implications which shone upon Henry VIII under the word faction itself. Conjointly, the texts share the unwavering view that the extent of faction was so very prominent during Henry VIII’s reign. They go on to explore that factions were in fact aggressive enough to tanter with everything from fundamental policy, the royal court, to the prize of becoming a member of the Privy Council. This highlights how these set

up fundamental foundations for the lack of factional control Henry VIII possessed. English History largely debates factions and the idea of what a faction actually is, and questions the two polar opposite arguments on whether Henry VIII was in control of factions, seen supported by Historian Alexander Guy or did factions manage Henry himself, argued by Historian Alistair Fox. Complimenting one another both Historians suggestively lean towards his incapability to control factions partially with Thomas Wolseys faction through the period of 1485-1547………………………………………..Under Tudor England factions offered the chance to seek reward for personal gain or for a promotion in a group, effectively being put in the right place.

Para one:
Ives commences by tackling the question of precisely defining ‘what is faction?’1.

Ives absolute definition eagerly declares that faction is ‘a group of people which seek objectives that are seen primarily in personal terms’2. Ives places high importance under ‘personal terms’3 and how we must not forget the requirement of the definition. It is imperative to note that in Tudor History the definition of faction can be generically labelled by Historians of all periods, revealing that ‘when events are not clear’4, ‘on goes the label’5. In parallel, Starkey correspondingly places judgement towards Historians John Guy and further Conrad Russell in relevance to the word faction, explaining it to be ‘in danger of being blunted by too much use’6. To gain an appreciation why faction was widespread in Tudor England, Ives progresses to study the anomaly of patronage and how ‘patronage was essential to selection’7, effectively a surrounding conductive to faction. Yet, putting aside their shared understanding on faction, both Historians viewpoints begin to differ when analysing the causes of how Henry was organised by factions. Ives expresses that ‘faction in the

locality’8
1 Eric Ives, Faction in Tudor England (Historical Association, 1986), p. 5.
2 Ives, p. 5.
3 Ives, p. 6.
4 Ives, p. 5.
5 Ives,p.5
6 David Starkey, ‘From Feud to Faction: English Politics c. 1450-1550’, History Today, 32 (1982), 16-22 (p. 16).
7 Ives, p. 6.
8 Ives, p. 7.

2/3
impacted encompassment of regionalism as well as stressing the important factor of ‘intense localism of English life’9 …….However, Starkey displays that Henrys ‘disinclination for business’10 implied him to hold a weak kingship.

More so, Henry’s spineless personality set up the primal foundations for his lack of factional control creating a ‘battleground for factional disputes’11 as discussed by Starkey. In strong parallel to Henry, his father, Henry VII is described by Starkey to have had a ‘strong devotion to affairs’12, who worked hard to….. Ironically as soon as young Henry VIII came to the throne, his initially act was to ‘sent his father’s most trusted ministers to the block’13, enhancing Starkey’s argument that Henry was in fact feeble and lacking

experience.

PARA2:
Faction nearing the close of the 20th century is comparatively dissimilar from that earlier on in the century. For instance, amongst earlier 20th century Historians there was a popular following to the argument that Henry was fully cognisant of the possibilities provided by a jurisdictional omnicompetence and that he puppeteered them against one another in order to advance the best result for himself. Ives ‘Faction in Tudor England’ presents that these early Historians would purely see Henry as a ‘powerful man’14 who would be impressed by ‘Henry’s authority’15 and overlook that Henry had a casual nature whereby his ‘dominance often slept’16. In the 21st century the contemporary attitude generally speaking leans towards sharing both Ives and Starkey view and that when discussing historiography it has generally been downgraded by revisionist Historians.

PARA 3:
Together Ives book and Starkey’s article circulate the notion that Henry VIII was unable to manage faction and place high empathise on how the king himself was mass manipulated by faction. Both Historians place importance under the significant figures of Cromwell and Wolsey, who individually became attacked by faction. Faction also commenced a crucial role to the falls of Henry VII’s ‘hatchet men’ Dudley and Empson and too Anne Boleyn. Historians have extensively argued that Henry VIII’s last will and testament was the creation not of his own, however of a ghostly court scheme, leaving his will to be allegedly tampered with. This instance discloses that Henry had deteriorated to such an extent and places importance on how effortlessly Henry can be manipulated. Complimenting one another’s work, Ives explains that ‘influence was highly exerted on the Tudor monarch’17. Sharing similarity with Ives, Starkey argues ‘Henry’s mind was poisoned’18 explaining that manipulation was ‘typical
9 Ives, p. 7.
10 Starkey, p. 18.
11 Starkey, p. 18.
12 Starkey, p. 18
13 Starkey, p. 18.
14 Ives, p. 22.
15 Ives, p. 22.
16 Ives, p. 22.
17 Ives, p. 11.
18 Starkey, p. 22.

3/3
of his reign’19. ‘From Feud to Faction’ reviews Henry VIII’s rule by tormenting his lack of capability to deal with factions and how his personality bought around ‘dangerous qualities’20 this in the right hand, ‘made him extremely manipulable’.21

Ives ‘Faction in Tudor England’ and Starkey’s ‘From Feud to Faction’ are central with in fitting into the historgraphical debate around Henry VIII and more closely factions surrounding him. It is imperative to highlight that Tudor faction is barely a generation old, and there is much more to discover and rewrite. When considered together both tetxs share the view of the Nineteen-eighty’s , therefore being consistent, with being produced within four years of one another. Ives concludes by expressing the complexterity of faction in a political and social organism. His clear guidance throughout on how faction not only leads to an understanding of what is a district social and political reality, thus his ability to explain that domestic faction provides both the social and political circuity successfully links these components together. Ives is highly respected amongst the Historical world in how he does not follow the mainstream idea of faction and therefore becomes a compelling piece of historiography opening up faction for a broader dialogue. Similarly, Strakeys article backs Ives in how in the sixteenth century faction was merely presented as a ‘close-kinit groups of politically motivated men’22 and again opens up discussion for readers, to grasp the development of faction over time.