‘The Tudor dynasty was fully established by 1487’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this view
The House of Tudor was founded by Henry VII in 1485. Known for its notorious reign from Henry VIII, the Tudor dynasty began from an uneven stance in 1485 after the Battle of Bosworth. This resulted is the many uncertainties and the disadvantages of Henry’s position as the king of England
The first issue Henry faced was the insecurity on the throne, as he was a usurper. After the events of the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, where Henry VII defeated Richard, Henry took over as the monarch of England. This was a distinct disadvantage because of this. Henry’s fault was through the fact he did not come from a line of legitimate family heritage. This
He had distant relations to a monarch. If Henry had been a from a distinct royal lineage, it would have resulted in a much smaller amount of insecurity. His relationship to the throne was through John Gaunt, whom his mother Margaret Beaufort was descended from, through his mistress, later his wife, Katherine Swynford. The line Henry descended from was weak. It was not a distinct line to the throne. It could be easily challenged by those with a stronger claim to the throne, such as Edward, the Earl of Warwick. The tudor dynasty had clear insecurities, even by 1487, as Henry could not establish the idea that he was a clear descendent of royalty. An example of the threats he faced from other of a stronger claim was .through the Lamber Simnel rebellion in 1486, lasting till 1487. Yorkist supporters had used a young boy as a pawn to begin a rebellion against Henry, who was from the house of Lancaster. They portrayed the young boy from oxford as Edward, Earl of Warwick who had a much stronger claim to the throne then Henry did. The large support for the rebellion, was shown through the support of the nobility e.g Margaret of Burgundy, Viscount Lovell, the Earl of Lincoln,... who provided both financial and military support, by hiring soldiers from Europe and gathering Yorkist support from Ireland. Nevertheless, Henry put down the rebellion decisively, as the main leaders and supporters were either killed in battle
The civil war had resulted in the ever-changing amount of kings over the years. This lack of stability could result in Henry being faced with a lack of support from his subjects. Their faith in a king who would guide the country was low, and their interest in the monarchy was fading. They needed consistency, which Henry could not offer considering his unsteady path to safeguarding his position on the throne. The nobility was another issue he had faced. Growing power of nobility in England could be met with resistance to Henry being on the throne. Henry was a calculated king, whom was not interested in the common characteristics of a king; drinking, constant lavish gatherings… Henry was more interested in being a strong and strict king. An opposition from the nobility could result in large reluctancy to follow Henry, further causing insecurity. However, he still had the more favourable opinion than Richard, who was strongly disliked in England, apart from in the north of
Henry VIII’s reign was a turning point in the Tudor period as it signified an end to Yorkist pretenders to the throne and it was at this point that the idea of regicide... ... middle of paper ... ... to support them in their rebellions. There was now a widening social gap that created tension as the gentry attempted to emulate the nobility. As although the Cloth trade in Kent was declining in 1554 Wyatt’s rebellion had no real socio – economic cause and the Northern Earls in 1569 and Essex in 1601 had no socio –economic causes whatsoever.
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.
...historical background set forth in the film, with the broad details of the attempted rebellion propelled by Queen Eleanor and led by Richard and Geoffrey are accurate, as is the attempt by Philip of France to undermine the Angevin Empire to regain the provinces acquired by Henry through his marriage to Eleanor. As depicted in the film, the indecision, faced by Henry II in attempting to determine which son to name as successor resulted from his desire to have the empire that he had created remain intact, rather than dividing the empire between his sons and this, in turn, led to the fracturing of both family and political cohesion, leaving the empire vulnerable to outside forces. Both Richard and John eventually ruled the empire, supported and influenced by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was released from her Salisbury prison upon the death of King Henry II.
honorble ruler. Henry IV was king of France between 1589 and 1610. He was supported
Henry VIII was not raised to become king; his brother was. When Henry took the throne, he had a great education, but no clue about what to accomplish as king and how to do it. Henry was more concerned with his image – he would throw lavish parties to show his luxurious lifestyle, and made few decisions himself concerning governing, instead relying heavily on his councilor...
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
...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.
For the simple fact that when Henry VI was younger and not allowed to take an active role in leading England, he did not really care about running the country. Henry was such a spiritually deep man that he lacked the worldly wisdom necessary to allow him to rule effectively (Wikipedia). Henry was more of an indecisive pushover.
Henry faced all sorts of challenges during his reign; from pretenders to Lords. Despite these efforts no one was able to overthrow him suggesting the challenges were not very serious.
More so, Henry’s spineless personality set up the primal foundations for his lack of factional control creating a ‘battleground for factional disputes’11 as discussed by Starkey. In strong parallel to Henry, his father, Henry VII is described by Starkey to have had a ‘strong devotion to affairs’12, who worked hard to….. Ironically as soon as young Henry VIII came to the throne, his initially act was to ‘sent his father’s most trusted ministers to the block’13, enhancing Starkey’s argument that Henry was in fact feeble and lacking
Henry VIII’s intimate and brutal rule and his perception of being both physically and socially above everyone else, hence concludes him contemptible of the title ‘Henry the Great’. Henry’s rule was very intimate and brutal,
He was a human that had emotions, he experienced grief with the multiple miscarriages and deaths of his sons and the betrayals of his wife’s, Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard. Also the death of Jane Seymour, the only wife to give him a male heir, brought him into a depression. These events changed Henry’s perspective of his own self, that he was without a legal heir, his health was horrendous and he was being betrayed by those closest to him. Lipscomb describes the transformation of Henry from the popular prince to the tyrant king know today. As shown, “the last decade of his reign, Henry VIII had begun to act as a tyrant. The glittering, brilliant monarch of the accession, toppled into old age by betrayal, aggravated into irascibility and suspicion as a result of ill health and corrupted by absolute power, had become a despot”. Henry is not thought of as the good Christian, but Lipscomb writes throughout this book that Henry was very serious about his religious affiliations. Lipscomb portrays Henry VIII as, “a man of strong feeling but little emotional intelligence, willful and obstinate but also fiery and charismatic, intelligent but blinkered, attempting to rule and preserve his honor against his profound sense of duty and heavy responsibility to fulfil his divinely ordained role”. In other words he was an emotional mess that did not know what to do with his feelings, so he bottled them up and south to seek
Initially, Henry seemed like a good person, who was responsible, intelligent, and a worthy king. He has a less than
Greaves, Richard L. “Tudor, House of.” World Book Advanced. World Book, 2014. Web. 6 Feb.