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. Margaret of Burgundy provided money and an army of 2000 mercenaries. They landed in Ireland in May 1487. Henry paraded the real Warwick through London, but support of the rebellion did not weaken and this was an unsuccessful move by Henry. He offered pardons to the rebels, but they refused them. This form of negotiating or appeasing demonstrates an unsuccessful attempt at dealing with it. 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. After fierce fighting, the rebels were defeated. Lincoln, Schwarz and the Irish leaders were killed in the fighting, which was a success as it removed the focal points or play makers of the challenges and rebellions. During the battle of East St... ... middle of paper ... ... It also provided England with a useful ally. By the end of the century Spain wanted to enrol England on her side against France in the so called Holy League and she used her influence to persuade the Emperor Maximilian to stop supporting Yorkist pretenders. This was confirmed by the Magnus Intercursus signed in 1496, in which Henry joined the League. However, he made it clear and did not commit himself in anyway to take aggressive action against France with which he retained friendly relations. This was successful as it made another ally and it meant that contenders and rebels could use Spain either. However, due to the ties with France and the hatred between Spain and France and the fact that England had marriage connections with England, this may have been an unsuccessful move as France could have broken away.
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 key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
Prestige Rather than National Security was the Main Concern of Henry VIII's Foreign Policy from 1529-1547
Lambert Simnel as a Greater Threat to the Security of Henry VII than Perkin Warbec
...The foreign support that Henry received was pivotal in starting Henry Tudor’s second attempt at invading England as otherwise he would never have been able to land and gather troops and support from domestic sources. However, once in England the support that Henry gained from welsh and English nobles and Barons meant that he was able to face Richard and defeat him at the Battle of Bosworth. Whilst support is vastly important in explaining Richard’s defeat, other factors such as Richard’s mistakes like policies that drained the Treasury (e.g. the war against Scotland) are to blame. This particular mistake prevented Richard from being able to stop Tudor from crossing the channel, and so it was left up to nobles Richard believed to be loyal to resist the invasion, this belief also backfired when Rhys ap Thomas joined Henry when he was promised the Lieutenancy of Wales.
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.
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.
Buckingham's rebellion in October 1483 highlighted just how deep his country's mistrust went. Instead of the rebellion been engineered by a high ranking noble (Buckingham only joined the rebellion towards its conclusion) it was now initiated by the common people. Alarming to Richard was the large amount of gentry that joined the rising. The rebellion was quickly crushed however as it was poorly organised and morale broke down within the rebels. Henry Stafford Duke of Buckingham was caught and executed by Richard.
However, he didn't listen to the duke of york who desperately wanted a say. This could have been another reason for the outbreak of conflict because the people didn't think he always made the right decision and the duke of York didn't like not being listened to. Another problem was with patronage, as Henry was overgenerous, but only to some people, he would give lots of patronage to Somerset and Suffolk but none to York. This was even worse because he had borrowed from York and instead if paying him back, gave patronage to others. He gave away more and more money and land so that there wasn't much left for important times like war and to make people happy or come onto his side.
Whilst Henry VI’s was in rule during the 1450’s, England had many issues and problems that cause such instability in the country. One of the largest factors arguably is the loss of the Hundred Years war between The French and English over France. This in turn caused many problems to occur with links to almost every feud the country faced. Yet some historians argue that Normandy wasn’t the main issue of instability in England instead of other reasons such as instability.
Peace of London in 1518, the Field of the Cloth of Gold and the Calais
by Spain and the pope, however, the league refused to accept a Protestant king of France
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".
The father and son relationship is one of the most important aspects through the youth of a young man. In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV, he portrays the concept of having "two fathers". King Henry is Hal’s natural father, and Falstaff is Hal’s moral father. Hal must weigh the pros and cons of each father to decide which model he will emulate. Falstaff, who is actually Hal’s close friend, attempts to pull Hal into the life of crime, but he refuses.