The Anti-Noble Policy of Henry VII Henrys policy to the nobles during his reign could be considered as antagonistic. Henry had realised how easily the nobles could pose a threat to him, due to their power and responsibilities in his country, and so reduced this power thus reducing the possibilities of his downfall. This essays intention is to determine why Henry pursued such a dangerous policy, yet also reviewing the claims that his policies were anti-noble. This essay will also be interpreting the reasons for Henrys actions and the views of historians on the subject. Before the reign of Henry VII, the role of the nobles was highly significant in comparison to that during his reign due to the policies he introduced. Previous to his accession, the nobles had controlling, highly rated responsibilities, for example the Kings' lieutenants, which kept control of law and order in their locality. This position gave them power over many citizens which surrounded them, the problem for Henry being that these people were more likely to support their local noble, rather than a king whom they rarely or possibly never had contact with. Previous to his reign, the nobility also maintained large amounts of land, provided by the king of that era, as well as many new lords being created under the ruling of his previous accessors. King Henry VII's reign introduced a new way of ruling a country. With his accession there were many other alterations made to the monarchy. The actions he took are considered by some as being anti - noble, but this issue is the key point reviewed by this essay. Henry made alterations because he came to realise ... ... middle of paper ... ...rptions, he remained in power until his death in ......, unlike many before him, who were forced to abdicate due to actions taken by the nobility. The main issue brought to attention in this essay is concerning the claim that Henry was anti-noble deliberately, to secure his throne; however, this is not the only issue. There are three main others. The initial exploration by this essay is into the financial prospects. Previously, before Henrys' policies, the nobles requested money from the king for amenities such as private armies. Henry's policy decreased the expenditure for these requests. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] "England" Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99. [2] Seminar Sheet page 1 [3] Seminar sheet. Page 1 [4] Seminar Sheet [5] Seminar Sheet
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.
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
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.
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.
New monarchs paved the way for a more profitable future for the most powerful countries in Europe. Fledgling countries such as Spain, France, and England, profited from their new monarchs, ultimately becoming the powerful world powers they are today. The key components of a new monarch include limiting the nobles' power, increasing economic prosperity, uniting their nation, and stabilizing their army. The monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, King Louis XI of France, and King Henry VII of England, are prime examples of new monarchs. New monarchs strengthened their nations considerably, in more ways than one.
In Political Testament, Cardinal Richelieu explains that the nobility is something to be used as a tool, a perpetual game of appeasement and request of services. He understood that the nobility could be a nuisance and a body of dissent against the King, but that they were necessary to the crown to provide military aid and money. Richelieu explains that one must know how to manage and manipulate them: “To take away the lives of these persons, who expose their lives every day for a pure fancy of honor, is much less than taking away their honor and leaving them a life which would be a perpetual anguish for them. All means must be used to maintain the nobility in the true virtue of their fathers, and one must also omit nothing to preserve the advantages they inherited.” ...
Henry VI's Incompetence as the Cause for the Outbreak of the Wars of the Roses
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
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.
... While Henry VIII was the king of England, he defeated France on many occasions, at the Battle of the Spurs for example. Henry VIII was also responsible for the religious reformation in England and changed the religion of England from the Roman Catholic faith to the Protestant Religion, and established the Church of England. If it weren’t for King Henry VIII, England would not have been as wealthy as it was because of the dissolution of the monasteries. The Act of Appeals aided the constitutional development of England, once again, thanks to Henry VIII.
Henry by all means had to keep the nobles his under control. This would have been one of his major priorities that he would have had to deal with in order to keep his country strong, powerful and reined by himself till death do him part. One of his schematic ways was to ban private armies those who did not obey would be fined up to 10,000 pounds. He would also send army members around the country and whichever house looked rich in any way the people sent would ask the house owners for money for protection. To this day this it is known as insurance. Also if they didn’t co-operate t...
...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.
King Henry IV held power in 1399 (Griffiths 1). He was very ambitious causing rebellion in his reign, which all began once he celebrated his first yuletide (Lunt 259-260). During his reign, the commons established precedents that secured privileges of freedom of speech and arrest. This declaration helped them have a say in political and local issues (Lunt 270). After Henry IV’s reign was terminated, Henry V accepted power (Phillips 1). Once he was crowned in 1413, he controlled the majority of England’s army, which at the time England needed a reliable army (Lunt 261).
Similar to France, England was affected economically by the Hundred Years’ War. However, Henry VII, the first Tudor king, hoped to change the way England was after the war. So, he ended the private wars of nobility by abolishing “livery and maintenance,” which abolished private armies of wealthy aristocrats. Henry also implemented the Court of Star Chamber to take care of the irresponsible activity of the nobles. He also worked on increasing revenue, avoiding wars, and respected the middle class. These changes, among others, created a strong, centralized form of authority.