Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Henry IV part 1 politics
Henry IV part 1 politics
Henry IV part 1 politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Henry IV part 1 politics
Throughout the eleventh and twelfth century, France was heavily fragmented with the monarchy in a weak position and the individual Vassals acting independently of the crown made evident by William of Normandy’s invasion of England in 1066 .This freedom originated from the fact that the French monarchy had weakened its own position through the distribution of their lands and territories amongst their loyal Vassal lords. This was problematic as it reduced the size of the royal demesne, thus limiting their level of resources and military support. In contrast, the Kings of England had avoided this problem by moving towards a system of elected officials as oppose hereditary Vassal lords. This was highly beneficial to Henry the 1st (2) as the country was capable of functioning in his absence, but additionally he had the option of stripping officials of their positions, if their loyalties became questionable. Overall the monarch of England and France had the same divine right to rule, however the French Kings ruled from a weaker position. So the question at hand is what aspects of French rule allowed the Vassals to grow in power and why this problem didn’t occur in England. We must consider the ways the Kings delegated power, and additionally how they rewarded those who excelled in their services. For many years the …show more content…
This increased loyalty led to Vassal lords having their own Vassals, in lesser nobles and castellans who provided them with resources and military support against their enemies and on occasions the King. This argument is supported by evidence from Suger of Saint-Denis, when he’s referring to the level of support received by Hugh of Le Puiset against the King “so limitless was Hugh's daring, so cogent was the force of his powerful pride that, although few loved him, many came to his service”
Due to the unstable political environment of the period 1399-1509, royal power varied from monarch to monarch, as parliament’s ability to limit this power fluctuated. There are several factors in limiting royal power, including the king’s relationship with parliament, royal finances and a king’s popularity, often due to military success. The most significant of these factors, however is the king's finances, as one of parliament's primary roles was to consider the king’s requests for taxation, and thus denying these requests would have been one of the few ways to effectively limit royal power.
France and England both worked with the middle class, and they both centralized power, yet France gained an absolute monarchy, while England didn’t. What was the difference between their growing of royal power? In addition to centralizing power and working with the middle class, they got rid of the nobles and they both had kings who refined the countries. However, when England got rid of the nobles, they didn’t gain any royal power, and their kings didn’t benefit their search for royal power. Unlike England, French absolutism succeeded due to its ability find their way around the nobles and powerful and determined kings.
Henry implemented many methods in order to control the nobility with varying success. Henry sought to limit the power of the nobles as he was acutely aware the dangers of over mighty subjects with too much power and little love for the crown or just wanted a change like Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick who deposed two kings to replace them. Also Henry’s own rise to the throne was helped by nobles dislike towards Richard III. By restricting the nobles Henry wanted to reduce the power of the nobles and possible threats against him and return the nobles from their quasi king status to leaders in their local areas but under the power of the crown.
The French revolted due to political, economic, and social injustices. Politically, the government was a mess. An absolute ruler can only be beneficial to the people if they cater to
The Agreement between Lord and Vassal is an account of a relationship between Hugh of Lusignan and William V of Aquitaine (who was also Count of Poitiers ). This account is seen through the perspective of Hugh, and provides examples of different powers, actions, and decisions of lords and vassals. According to the introduction of the Agreement, this account was "wrote or dictated " between 1020 and 1025 . Through criticism and analysis of this source, I hope to determine what information historians can gather from a first-person document and how/if this document has a place in the milieu of history.
This is because of many refugees that occurred from the lost as they were citizens that had moved to France during the success of the Hundred Year War. This meant that there was a rapid increase in population causing homelessness to occur and this made the already poor to rich ratio incline quickly meaning it meant more citizens looking for jobs. It also meant a shortage on food since most of the refugees went to big cities for work and housing. This made the general population question their king since little to no support was ever shown by Henry VI as he still had to sort out many feuds with the nobles to keep a steady income for the crown, not to mention the support for Henry VI
that contributed to the rise and fall of the French Monarchy. The ideas of the
In the little kingdoms or principalities, the lands over which a King ruled were regarded as no different from other property. Among the Franks, all sons were entitled to a share. Therefore, when a King died, each son became a King over his own little kingdom. Thus, many political units became small so there were no uniform laws or policies. This lack of unity made them vulnerable to enemies as well as conflict from within. Bullough points out that the loyalty of a warrior or subject to his chosen leader was not a light matter. The author does not contrast that concept of loyalty however, with our present ideas of loyalty to the homeland or institution.
and trustworthy. There would seem to be a sort of contract between the king and his subjects: he
In addition to this, the cost of running a government in general had gone up and the country needed more money. Because the king didn't have as much power to tax as he pleases, the government could make a firm and accurate taxation of the people. In France, the price of government had also gone up.
When Louis the XIV began his rule in 1643, his actions immediately began to suggest and absolute dictatorship. Because of the misery he had previously suffered, one of the first things he did was to decrease the power of the nobility. He withdrew himself from the rich upper class, doing everything secretly. The wealth had no connection to Louis, and therefore all power they previously had was gone. He had complete control over the nobles, spying, going through mail, and a secret police force made sure that Louis had absolute power. Louis appointed all of his officials, middle class men who served him without wanting any power. Louis wanted it clear that none of his power would be shared. He wanted "people to know by the rank of the men who served him that he had no intention of sharing power with them." If Louis XIV appointed advisors from the upper classes, they would expect to gain power, and Louis was not willing to give it to them. The way Louis XIV ruled, the sole powerful leader, made him an absolute ruler. He had divine rule, and did not want to give any power to anyone other than himself. These beliefs made him an absolute ruler.
Sutherland, Donald M.G. The French Revolution and Empire: the quest for a civic order. Oxford, UK. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2003. 40-43. Print.
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty
I think the lord/vassal relationship included protection, but it had a lack of trust. In the Letter to William of Aquitaine, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres explains that the vassal must do things for the name of his lord with six traits in order to be considered worthy. The traits are harmless, safe, honorable, useful, easy, and possible. If the vassal cannot withhold these traits, the Lord is given the right to deny the vassal the land. Based off of Agreement between Lord and Vassal, I think the lord’s over stepped the power. The vassals did their jobs and protected the lord, but the lord did not hold his promises of giving them land. A lack of trust between the lord and vassals is created, but the lord is able to convince his vassal to keep
Men who were vassal saw that they could gain land and privileges from servicing the king. Some of the men who gained higher rank or owned lots of land would end up forcing the king to grant them rights of private justice and immunity from royal interference. As well when men decided to become a vassal’s not only did they pledge their life to service but as well went through an entire ceremony. The ceremony was known as the Homage Ceremony.