The Reign of Edward VI
The reign of Edward VI saw great religious upheaval from a Protestant religion that was Catholic in nature to a more clearly defined and radical quasi-Calvinism. In that sense religious policy hardened. But the policies and ideal never became deeply entrenched and accepted throughout the country and often only existed to serve the interests of those who enacted them, and not the future stance of the church. Under Somerset the changes involved merely creating a Protestant facelift, and only under Northumberland did sweeping radical changes emerge. However, policy never hardened enough, or became accepted enough, to prevent it being disintegrated when Mary came to power in 1553.
The religious situation was highly unstable at the time of Edward's ascendance. Although Henry had allowed Protestant leaning clerics to predominate in the later year of his reign, most religious statutes remained orthodox, and conservative. But under Somerset Protestants who had previously fled to Europe after the six articles, such as Hooper, Becon, and Turner, all returned. Many were writers banned under Henry VIII, along with Luther and other European
Protestants. Guy points out that 159 out of 394 new books printed during the
Protectorate were written by Protestant reformers.
Reformers predominated the Privy council under Somerset, and reform was popular amongst the gentry of the time. But outside London and East Anglia
Protestantism was not a major force. In terms of religious hardening, it is unlikely that the surge of Protestantism had any particular long term impact outside these areas. It was only in these areas that violent iconoclasm took place. Elsewhere far more moderate reforms such as vernacular Bibles and services were introduced.
The legislation of the Somerset era also did little to aid a definite hardening of religious policy. The Privy council remained reluctant to make any radical moves. The Council, parliament, and the convocation all wanted reform, but not of the type that would firmly thrust the country into radical
Protestantism. Moderate leanings were all that was desired, and this was reflected in the two major pieces of legislation, the Chantries Act and the
Treason Act, which both did little to resolve doctrinal uncertainties. The new book of common prayer also trod a careful path between Protestantism and
Catholicism.
Jordan states that “These years ... were characterised by patience with the bishops, almost half of whom were conservative in their views and Catholic in their doctrinal sympathies, though all, trained as they were in the reign of
Henry VIII, lent complete support to the Act Supremacy in all its constitutional and political implications ... the lesser clergy and the laity were with few
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
Edward IV's Reign and Success Edward’s reign was mainly stable and successful. He was the first king to die financially solvent in over 200 years due mainly to his careful avoidance of major foreign wars and by the end of his reign there was evident recovery of prosperity in the southern counties. However, Edward died too early to ensure that his heir would succeed him unchallenged. He had not created a collective commitment to the future of his dynasty that would make his heir strong enough to survive a minority reign. Although this was his main failure, he did not wholly succeed in all other actions through his reign.
The Loss of the Throne by Richard III There are many views as to whether Richard III lost his throne, or if it was a mainly Tudor advance which secured it. Overall I think that Henry Tudor did not actively gain the throne decisively, in fact Richard III lost it from making key mistakes throughout his reign, and at Bosworth. Richard weakened his grasp on the throne by indulging in a vast plantations policy which gave too much power to Northerners and inevitably made him dependant on these few. The fact that Northerners were given such a huge dependence enraged the South, and rid Richard of many possible backers during a war. Richard had also been so determined to suppress any rebellions and secure Henry Tudors downfall that he spent vast National funds on these ventures.
Westminster Abbey, an architectural accomplishment from the thirteenth century on, gives an illustrative display of British history. While daily worship still exists, it isn’t a cathedral or a parish church (Internet Westminster). The elaborate Lady Chapel, the shrine of St. Edward the Confessor, as well as tombs and memorials for kings, queens, the famous and great, allow the Abbey to be considered a “Royal Peculiar”, which means that it falls under direct control of the British monarch (Internet Westminster). While every king or queen is significant, a small number have made an impact on the Abbey. Nobility of which include St. Edward the Confessor William the Conqueror Henry III, Richard II, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, George VI and Elizabeth II.
MACCULLOCH, D. Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation. London, Penguin Books, 2001.
have come to England to meet the king unless it was as important as an
his coronation. He was a young man coming up to the age of 18. He was
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 Revolutionary Policies of Henry VIII Henry was a supreme egotist. He advanced personal desires under the guise of public policy or moral right, forced his ministers to pay extreme penalties for his own mistakes, and summarily executed many with little excuse. In his later years he became grossly fat, paranoid, and unpredictable. Nonetheless he possessed considerable political insight, and he provided England with a visible and active national leader. Although Henry seemed to dominate his Parliaments, the importance of that institution increased significantly during his reign.
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.
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.
...n use today emphasized that the very people that have the power to make laws, do not put them into practice.
Legislators were meant to create laws which align with ideals of the constitution, yet they also responded to the voice of political advocates and endorsed laws, strategically worded to discriminate ...
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".
Queen Elizabeth I was born on September 7, 1533, in Greenwich, England. Elizabeth reigned queen of England and Ireland from November 17, 1558 until her death. Elizabeth never married, and died a virgin, sometimes called “The Virgin Queen” (Gale 2). Elizabeth was born to King Henry Tudor VIII and Anne Boleyn; she was the fifth and last monarch of the Tudor dynasty. This paper will prove Queen Elizabeth I was a woman wholly devoted to her country and brought it much prosperity and growth; these qualities made her the most respected leader of the entire history of England.