“Henry was a weak King, by the standards of his time.” Simon de Montfort was justified in his actions towards the King Edward the third; because he wanted to make a change and better his town of Leicester and of England, and be a good king that would .
Simon de Montfort was a wealthy, French, educated leader, and an aristocrat. Simon de Montfort was the son of Simon de Montfort l’Amaury and was the third of four children. When Simon de Montfort became older, Simon de Montfort let his brother Amaury take his portions of the great family lands, in return for the right to fix up the town of Leicester, and have earldom of it. Simon de Montfort was not formally named earl of Leicester until April 1239.
In 1229 Simon de Montfort first visited his cousin Ranulf, earl of Chester. The two won the respect of Henry III and paid homage to him in 1231. Henry III made Simon de Montfort welcome in England. The Simon de Montfort and King Henry were friends throughout the 1230s. Simon de Montfort wanted to marry a French woman but his new friend king Henry insisted that Simon de Montfort Mary’s his sister Eleanon whom was a widow.
Simon de Montfort and King Henry III were great friends through the 1230’s. Simon’s financial problems led to lots of fighting and arguing between the two friends. Simon de Montfort finally exploded after his friend King Henry insisted that he would pay for an expensive battle. “Henry III. Oh, dear, what can we say about this monarch that will not sound too censorious? Well, not much. Henry was one of the least effective of England’s medieval monarchs. He was constantly in need of money, which in itself was not unique among English kings. The trouble was that Henry wanted money for causes that the English no...
... middle of paper ...
...vernment.
Increased signs of weakness by Henry led to de Montfort becoming the rallying point for opposition and at the Battle of Lewes in May of 1264 he captured both the King and his son, Prince Edward, who later made his escape.- http://www.whub.org.uk/cms/museums-worcestershire/hartlebury/history-and-collections/tales-in-evesham.aspx
To keep him in bounds the celebrated Provisions of Oxford were framed. They provided that he was to do nothing without the consent of a permanent council of fifteen barons and bishops, and that all his finances were to be controlled by another committee of twenty-four persons. All aliens were to be expelled from the realm, and even the king's household was to be reformed by his self-constituted guardians. - http://everything2.com/title/English+http://everything2.com/title/English+History%253A+The+Provisions+of+Oxford+and+Westminster
This was due to parliament’s primary role being to consider the king’s requests for taxation. Refusing this request was on of the few ways to limit royal power. During part of his reign, Edward IV was able to rule with total royal power, after he signed the “Treaty of Picquigny”, which granted him £15,000, and then a pension of £10,000 a year. This money enabled Edward to rule without the need to call for a parliament, meaning he was free from control and criticism. This treaty was important as it signifies parliament losing some of their ability to control the crown. Edward was able to rule with this pension until 1482, to pay troops against Scottish rebels. Edward IV shows us that a king was able to rule with complete royal power, as long as they had the funds to support themselves. This also worked the other way round, with financially struggling monarchs having much of their royal power limited by parliament. The most important example of this is in 1404, when parliament demanded the appointment of “special” treasurers, to ensure taxes were not spent in the royal household. Henry IV later faced further limiting of his royal power, after thirty-one acts were written to control the finances of the royal
Duc de Saint-Simon lived in the Palace of Versailles with King Louis XIV of France during the late seventeenth century. Louis did not move his court to Versailles until 1682, so it can be assumed that this document was written after. In his memoirs, he took detailed notes describing Louis’ attributes overwhelmingly positive, but seemingly accurate. This author creates a somewhat skewed look for the king of France with the immense positivity. Louis ruled with an absolute monarchy, Saint-Simon seems to be composing this to please the king and also for later to understand what life was truly like in the court and life at Versailles.
When we look at Henry as a king we have to look in the context of
Now, Henry had an heir to the throne, his son Edward. As time would pass, the future king of England was getting more and more weak and sicker. Henry passed on,
...te their own opinions, and that is what he let them do. He let his title of a politique ruler manifest him through silence, which differed tremendously from Henry of Navarre. He never spoke out and sort of just let things be (Harrison 40-42).
By the end of his reign, Henry had managed to more than double the money possessed by the monarch, through many means, such as his taxation policies, but his main source of monetary increase was from the nobility. One example of the methods used by Henry to obtain the money and land of the nobility, to strengthen his own power over them, was through his Lord Chancellor, John Morton, who put into effect “Morton’s Fork”, an idea stating nobility that wore expensive clothes were well off enough to give money to the king, but if they appeared poor and struggling, it was because they were a miser, and could still afford to give money to the king. Morton encouraged the nobility to offer “loans” to the crown, to show their loyalty to the king, and through Morton’s Fork, convinced many to do so, and while gave him great financial gain, it also asserted his power over them and discouraged them to oppose him. Henry also showed his power over the nobles –again gaining money in the process- by no longer giving land to nobles who showed their loyalty, but by giving them titles, such as the Order of the Garter, which cost him no money. He also gained loyalty from those who had fought against him in the Battle of Bosworth by providing them with the ultimatum of either paying for their previous disloyalty by a large sum of money and land and/or imprisonment, or by paying smaller amounts over a period of time and possibly providing the king with their men. This caused fear in the nobles, as they did not wish to anger the king and risk loss of all their fortune and possibly their freedom. A notable example of this is Lord Burgavenny, who was forced to remain in the king’s favour to remove his risk of ruin. Financial and power gain did not come solely from the nobles, however, as Henry enforced taxes upon the general population which not only showed his
In Shakespeare’s “The Life of King Henry V,” set in England in the early fifteenth century, with the famous and heroic English King, Henry V, claiming his “rights” to the French throne. This claim caused complications and the declaration of war on both English and French soil. This political war, then turn into a route of complicated negotiations, after King Henry’s terrifying forces had successfully defeated French forces. As the result of the war, a peace treaty was made, and part of that agreement was the marriage between King Henry V and the daughter of the King of France, Katherine of Valois. An analysis of the both King Henry’s and Katherine’s relationship reveals that both had conflicting perspectives of one another, which resulted as a marriage in political unions of two powerful nations rather than a union of two lovers.
When Henry VIII ascended to the throne in 1509, he became yet another English monarch without absolute power over his realm. Despite not having the same authority as his contemporary European monarchs, Henry was the recipient of two very important prerequisites for a successful reign. The first was a full treasury and the second was a peaceful transfer of power, which had been anything but certain in England since the War of the Roses. At first he was content to enjoy the fruits of his father’s labor, but ultimately he sought glory in his own name. Henry plunged into needless conflict in Europe, eliminated anyone who opposed him, and became so obsessed with securing a male heir that he engineered a split with the Catholic Church. It was this adventurous spirit that would lead to a decline in both of his key inheritances. Henry VIII may not have been an absolute monarch in the sense that his contemporaries were, but he often acted in a manner that resembled a supreme sovereign. Consequently, his reign seems to have been focused on his own ambitions instead of his subjects’ welfare.
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
First, it is important to get a background on Prince Henry and his lifestyle. He is not what you would consider a typical prince. Instead of making appearances as the royalty that he was, he would frequently be seen at the local bar drinking with the common folk. Due to his unacceptable behavior, he has acquired a bad reputation throughout the land, and even with his father, King Henry IV. His character is even further discredited because of the low-life drunks that are his friends. As you can see, Prince Henry is not as proper and well behaved as you would expect with nobility.
...der to maintain success. King Henry showed that he is restricted to one language which resulted him to not gain the lower class power and it then lead him to focus on his political status. On the other hand, Hal presented himself to the viewers as a friendly character, yet he sustained to manipulate and lie to others to achieve his goals. Henry IV n, Part 1 presents the idea of political power and the different characteristics leaders follow. The lesson for audiences, then, is to develop relationships with different people who will expand one’s area of inspiration and the ability to advance success. One can learn from the mistakes of King Henry and remember to be visible and properly positioned, so society can see one’s strengths and talents.
As time progressed Henry also thought of the injustice in working and paying the wages he had earned to a master who had no entitlement to them whatsoever. In slavery he had been unable to question anything of his masters doing. He was unable to have rage, sadness, or even sickness, for he would be b...
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.
pg 296 [3] M and J Spencer “Constitutional and Administrative Law” (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2000) pg 28 [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407374,00.html
when the Yorkists tired to confront King Henry VI. “The King had by his side the Dukes