CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Malus Intercursus

1506 commercial treaty between England and Burgandy

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMay 22, 2026
Entity authorityQ60740017
Source-derived summary

The Malus Intercursus was a commercial treaty signed in April 1506 by King Henry VII of England and Duke Philip IV of Burgundy. The treaty was signed while Philip was stranded in England, after surviving a shipwreck.

The treaty removed all duties from English textile exports. Another term was the arranged marriage of the widowed Henry VII to the also widowed Margaret of Austria, Philip's sister. This marriage never took place, as Margaret objected to the treaty and its terms. Another term of the treaty forced Philip to surrender custody of Edmund de la Pole, 3rd Duke of Suffolk to Henry VII. At the time, the exiled Suffolk was the leading heir of the House of York. In return, Henry VII recognised Philip and his wife Joanna of Castile as the legitimate rulers of the Kingdom of Castille, and allowed them to safely leave England.

Background and detail

Continuing frictions with the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London, combined with Henry's desire to secure Edmund de la Pole, 3rd Duke of Suffolk, the leading Yorkist heir, sheltering in Burgundy, led Henry to attempt further negotiations, even after the ratification of the Intercursus Magnus in 1496. A shipwreck in 1506 left Philip stranded in England en route to claiming the Castilian inheritance of his wife, Joanna the Mad. This enabled Henry to negotiate the Intercursus Malus ("evil treaty", so named from the Dutch perspective for being far too favorable to English interests), intended to replace the Intercursus Magnus.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Malus Intercursus” is 1506 commercial treaty between England and Burgandy. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Malus, Intercursus and commercial, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1506, 1496—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Malus, Intercursus and commercial is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “1506 commercial treaty between England and Burgandy” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q60740017. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1506 and 1496.

Critical limits

Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Malus Intercursus”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Malus Intercursus primary sources, Malus Intercursus archive and Malus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Malus Intercursus”?
  2. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
  3. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Malus Intercursus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.