Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of King Henry VIII
Domestic policy of henry vii
Impact of King Henry VIII
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of King Henry VIII
Comparing Henry VIII's Government in 1509 to 1514 to His Father's
From the transition of Old king to Young king we can assume there will
be lots of differences in the personalities between Henry VII and
Henry VIII, these differences are what makes Henry VIII's policies and
government different to that of his father. Henry's personality was
quite amazing, his intelligence, learning and curiosity impressed the
ambassadors who littered his court, and his thirst for knowledge was
insatiable. Like his father, he was caught in the transition from
medieval England to renaissance England. And like his father, he was
well-versed in English history and desperate to continue the Tudor
dynasty, to secure his claims to Ireland, Scotland, and France, to
raise England to the status of its continental neighbors, and to
expand his God-given right to rule all Englishmen.
'I have no fear but when you heard that our Prince, now Henry the
Eighth, whom we may call our Octavius, had succeeded to his father's
throne all your melancholy left you at once.' Lord Mountjoy to
Erasmus, 1509.
The new king was seen as a good king and although inexperienced a good
leader in the future.
For Years Henry VII had been imposing heavy taxes on the English
through Bonds and Recognisances, making the nobility sign a contract
of good behavior otherwise face fines with the help of the council
learned in Law, headed by Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. Henry VII
had a carrot and stick policy with the nobility; he tempted them and
kept them happy with the carrot, while beating them and keeping then
in control with his stick. He was worried about the threat of over
...
... middle of paper ...
...ttish while Henry VIII
was away fighting France.
I think in the same circumstances although Henry VII didn't like war
he would have acted the same, rather than accepting an attack from
Scotland he would also have fought back. However Henry VIII didn't
make any effort for peace an avenue which Henry VII probably would
have tried first.
I would say they both acted the same way regarding Scotland although
like nearly other difference between the two kings, it has come from
Henry VIII's haste.
Lord Elton said Henry VIII was 'Exceptionally Impetuous' and most of
the different decisions in government between Henry and his Father
would have come from this attitude of Henry VIII's. I think both kings
had very different style of doing things but their policies weren't as
different as I first thought they would be.
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.
Prestige Rather than National Security was the Main Concern of Henry VIII's Foreign Policy from 1529-1547
Henry had no means of knowing how much support the rebels might attract when they landed. This suggests that Henry was not fully aware or informed of the rebellion and therefore was unsure what to do. Without knowing fully about the challenge the success with which he could deal with the challenge was severely undermined. Henry raised an army to answer the rebellion and on the 16th June, the two armies met at East Stoke; just outside Newark.
training when he came to power in 1485, had managed in the time he was
After many failed attempts to obtain a divorce from his first wife Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII took momentous steps that led to "The Reformation," a significant occurrence in the history of religion. Prior to the reformation, all of England's inhabitants including King Henry VIII prescribed to Catholicism. In fact, King Henry VIII was such a strong supporter that he was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the pope for his efforts in protecting Catholicism against the Protestants. However, all these changed upon the pope's denial of Henry's request for a divorce.
When we look at Henry as a king we have to look in the context of
I side with Loades on this as despite resentment from the nobles, after the Perkin Warbeck imposture there were no more serious uprisings which strongly support the success of Henry’s policies. Whilst most nobles would see his methods as unjust (especially the wide of use bonds and recognisances) Henry succeeded in increasing the crown’s standing at the expense of the nobility, securing his position whilst weakening the nobles. Through most of his policies Henry was successful in limiting the powers of nobility. Henry sought to restrict the noble’s power and yet at the same time needed them to keep order and represent him at local levels, therefore Henry sought not to destroy the nobles but to weaken them enough that they did not pose a threat, he needed a balance of control over the nobles and strong nobility.
...olitical needs of the time, which was the divorce of Henry from Catherine of Aragon in 1533, in order for Cromwell to fulfil his king’s wish; he pragmatically detached the problematic Pope and his Holy Roman Empire from England to resolve the Great Matter by having to (not wanting to) reform the Parliament, consequentially morphing England into a sovereign state. The bureaucratic reformation which is argued by Elton to be a part of the revolution in Tudor government once again boils down to Cromwell’s loyal servitude to the king, addressing the financial problem of Henry’s with a series of solutions which would certainly benefit the King in the long term. The work of Cromwell was not revolutionary as it failed to survive the several changes of monarchy (excluding the work achieving sovereignty) and did occur in a swift manner how revolution realistically would occur.
war often, for the sake of his country, but when he did he put in a
Henry VI had a lot of weaknesses with foreign policy, his inability to make decisions, patronage, Richard duke of York, finance and evil council. With foreign policy he showed weakness in defending his country, after his father Henry VII had conquered land in France, he lost it. He lost Normandy and Gascony in 1451 due to defeat in France. This affected morale and the incomes of nobles because they had lost, reducing their reputation, especially as they had lost some of their own land, and the incomes went down because money was spent on war, so less money was available to give as income. This could have been a reason for the outbreak of conflict because the people would not have been happy with their situation. Henry's next weakness was his inability to make decisions.
...tect his right to the throne. Ultimately, he stabilized the nation by settling the civil wars, the Wars of Roses, by marrying the apposing York family, to unite the two feuding families, the Yorks and the Lancasters. All together, King Henry VII is a new monarch for displaying all of the required traits.
Peace of London in 1518, the Field of the Cloth of Gold and the Calais
honorble ruler. Henry IV was king of France between 1589 and 1610. He was supported
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into