Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Henry VII and security
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Henry VII and security
Lambert Simnel as a Greater Threat to the Security of Henry VII than Perkin Warbec
'After Bosworth, Henry's most immediate and perhaps greatest problem
was ensuring that he kept the crown.' from Henry VII by R. Turvey and
C. Steinsberg. This was very true, as throughout Henry's reign he
faced many threats because as King he wasn't established and therefore
vulnerable to challenge. Also there were still Yorkists in power who
wanted to claim the throne back from the usurper King and there was
also strong foreign support for any potential threat towards Henry.
A threat that Henry did face throughout most of his reign was the
threat from Pretenders, and none came as more as threat than of
Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.
Both pretenders had different claims to the throne, which could
potentially threaten Henry. Lambert Simnel claimed to be the 'Edward,
Earl Of Warwick'. In fact the real Edward (son of George, Duke of
Clarence) was a prisoner in the Tower of London, which Henry proved by
parading the real Edward through the streets of London in order to
prove that Simnel was an impostor/pretender. If Simnel had been the
real Edward, it would have been a very big threat to Henry's throne,
because if the princes in the tower were dead, the real Edwards claim
would be much stronger than of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York's
combined. However, Simnel on his own didn't pose much of a threat,
because he was actually a 10-year-old boy.
Perkin Warbecks claim to the throne is a more serious threat than of
Lambert Simnel, as Warbeck claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, the
younger son of Edward IV and as no one was sure what had happened to...
... middle of paper ...
...ey and C. Steinsberg. This once gain shows how
much of a threat Henry perceived Warbeck to be unlike Simnel, 'the
strawdoll', Warbeck had to be executed in order to end his threat, but
this may also have been due to the pressure from the Spaniards. They
wanted the Tudor dynasty to be secure before they allowed Catherine of
Aragon to marry Prince Arthur.
But how easily Warbeck's foreign powers easily gave up their support
for Warbeck shows to some degree how they were using him, but also how
weak his foreign support was and it is Warbeck's foreign support that
made him threatening. Henry made an alliance in 1492 with France known
as the Treaty of Etaples, which resolved the problem between France
and England. Also in 1497 there was the seven-year true agreed at
Ayton, which stopped Scotland's involvement with Warbeck.
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
The Challenges to Henry VII Security Between 1487 and the end of 1499 Henry VII faced many challenges to his throne from 1487 to the end of 1499. These included many rebellions and pretenders to his throne. To what extent was the success he dealt with them differs although the overriding answer is that by the end of his reign he had secured his throne and set up a dynasty, with all challengers removed. Lambert Simnel challenged Henry’s security when Richard Symonds passed him off as Warwick. Simnel was taken to Ireland, which had become the centre of Yorkist plotting.
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.
Richard did not manage to recover from the usurpation of Edward and after allegedly murdering the two Princes in the tower his reputation had fallen greatly. He had lost a lot of respect from nobles and from the populus. Killing the Princes could be seen as one of the major factors of his downfall. It was common place in monarchical families to have brothers and sisters "put out of the picture", but even in these primitive times, the murder of innocent children was a taboo.
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.
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 in Henry V The bishops refer to Henry in the first scene as "a sudden scholar" who can "reason in divinity. " Canterbury says, "The king is full of grace, and fair regard. Ely quotes "and a true lover of the holy church. The two bishops, pretty much have the same view on Henry, they think highly of him.
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.
The significance of Hal is interesting because Hal’s attitude at the opening of the play is of a young idle man. His father, Henry, wants him to be his true successor to the throne so it worrying that he behaves otherwise. Throughout the play Hal’s development is significant to me as he begins to mature into a young prince.
real opponent is King Henry, and yet it is Hal, 'the madcap of Wales', who
Lambert was a boy who bore striking resemblance to the sons of Edward IV, the late King Richard III's brother. In league with the Duchess of Burgundy that these two allies along with the Earl of Lincoln and Sir John de la Pole conspired to dethrone Henry VII. Duchess of Burgundy who was the daughter of Edward IV who paid to have Lambert as a boy trained . Lambert was taken to Ireland which was the heart of the Yorkist family. In Ireland the Earl of Kildare proclaimed Simnel as King Edward VI . These actions as previously stated all took place outside of England which is distancing from the English people and has little or no contact with
One of the most famous scenes in Henry IV: Part I is the scene in which Prince Hal and Falstaff put on a play extempore. This is often cited as the most famous scene because it is Hal’s turning point in the play. However, the scene is much more than that. The play extempore is a moment of prophecy, not epiphany because is cues the reader in to the play’s major themes, and allows readers to explore the possibilities of the play’s continuance.
Edward V and his brother so that he could be next in line for the crown. But that is not true for Richard really didn’t do it.