To what extent has Henry VIIs success as the first of the Tudor Monarchs been exaggerated - Essay Example

This was shown in his productive use of the chamber system for money matters during his “personal rule” from 1503-1509, which Edward IV (1471-1483) introduced previously. Furthermore, we find fault in Christine Carpenter’s observation that Henry “became king under better circumstances than any other” – because the country itself was battered and bruised from the long and arduous Wars of the Roses. The above issues are just some of the arguments that make Henry VII’s alleged success controversial and exaggerated.

But in order to come to a conclusive and relatively balanced position as to how exaggerated Henry’s success has been, it is imperative to review some of the historiographical evidence available to us from contemporary and modern day accounts. Why would anyone want to distort or exaggerate Henry’s success? Usually the answer can be found embedded in matters concerning patronage, flattery and the obvious fact that few individuals would wish to risk their lives in making the king appear ignorant or incompetent.

For starters, I can easily understand what Michael Sittow’s portrait of Henry in 1505 was trying to depict. Sittow conveyed a man that is richly dressed (showing his omnipotent Tudor badge) with the faint presence of what seems a slight, grudging smile. Here, we first encounter the exaggeration in terms of his physical appearance. If Sittow’s portrait were entirely accurate, for instance, then why would Pietro Torrigiano’s sculpture be so very different? As Dawson stated, they are so peculiarly distinct from each other that the latter’s Henry “could be a different man.

” Torrigiano used higher cheekbones and a longer nose, which, no doubt, modified to take after the “high Roman fashion” reflected in Shakespeare’s own, Antony and Cleopatra. Obviously, the sculptor aimed to create a domineering, decisive and commanding figure.