King henry VIII ruled from 21 April 1509 until he died on January 28th 1547 at the palace of Whitehall London. His reign lasted for 37 years, 6 months and 9 days and was only 18 when he stated his reign as King. He was born on June 28th 1491 Greenwich. He was the king in the Tudor era, the second after his father (King Henry VII. He was a very well-known king because of several reasons such as having six wives or beheading a lot of people. To be a good king you have to manage your money well and keep your country in order like stop rebellions happening, Henry succeeded with this at the start of his reign but as time passed greed and the control took over. He spent a lot of money on wars against France and a lot of money was spent on his banquets …show more content…
Following on King Henry was well known for executing a lot of people, sometimes there was a good reason but other times there wasn’t. The evidence to support my point is source G which states “several times Henry killed because he liked it, he didn’t give people a fair trial” this can be a trusted source because it was written by a historian who generally are not biased towards to people. He killed his friend Sir Thomas More and there wasn’t really a good reason. The only reason is because when king Henry asked for his advice Thomas more replied in a letter that had catholic references and King Henry was a protestant and one of the references was when Thomas said that god was there holy father furthermore the advice was to wait for god to solve the problems and that he needed to be patient and Henry wasn’t happy with this because he wanted a quick response and quick …show more content…
Here is some evidence on henry wasting money. Source H says “Henry VIII fought wars with France and Scotland. He spent money a lot of money on fighting. Despite winning some battles, Henry didn’t really achieve anything “this shows that he didn’t actually need to battle in the wars and the word some shows that Henry didn’t actually win all battles so spent money on things he didn’t need to do and lost the money in the end. This source is reliable because it was written by a group of historians and is in a school history book, yet again historians are not supposed to be biased towards people. This source then can be trusted. King Henry as a king had a responsibility to keep control of the country so when this letter was sent by Henry it would have been quit worrying, here is the quote from source B “I want you to keep a close watch on the duke of Suffolk, on the duke of Buckingham, on the lord of Wiltshire and others “this shows that King Henry possibly didn’t trust them to do their job correctly and needed to check they were doing what they were supposed to do, on the other hand it is good that henry is keeping a watch on them as then he knows if they are doing their job correctly. This could be a debatable in weather or which it is good or bad but it has both good and bad elements. Also one more thing people didn’t like about king henry was how he changed
According to Loach, Henry between 1540 and 1544 had dispensed £250 000 using the money for military expenses, palace building and "pocket money". This shows that Henry was very extravagant in his spending of money and to some extent left Somerset with an impossible legacy. Diplomatically Henry left Somerset with an impossible legacy because at this time Scotland was a threat to England due to the support they had from France. Another reason why Scotland was a key area for Somerset was because of the Treaty of Greenwich 1543 and a specific clause in it.
Henry IV and eventually the throne of England. It is also the attributes that allow him to
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".
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.
When we look at Henry as a king we have to look in the context of
...ad been in a state of economic crisis for an extensive time. These actions created a rift between his subjects; many remained loyal to the church and wanted Henry to reinstate it, while others believed it to be corrupted, and accepted the new change. Revolution hung in the air and threatened the stability Henry had been pushing to create. He knew that the tension would recede should he bear a son to carry on the Tudor name.
honorble ruler. Henry IV was king of France between 1589 and 1610. He was supported
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.
One of the key words in his dialogue is 'honour' because in Elizabethan times honour was bound up with ideas of nobility and manliness. Henry has constant reference to the divine, to get permission for his actions, 'God's will.' Additionally there is various uses of semantic fields, associated with religion, God, covet, honour and sin; all taken from the bible. Henry applies a very close relationship term, 'cuz.'
Henry in Henry V The bishops refer to Henry in the first scene as "a sudden scholar" who can "reason in divinity. " Canterbury says, "The king is full of grace, and fair regard. Ely quotes "and a true lover of the holy church. The two bishops, pretty much have the same view on Henry, they think highly of him.
King Henry VIII was one of the most powerful rulers in the fifteenth century, who had a very captivating life many people are not aware of. Most people know Henry VIII as a berserk king with too many wives, but there is more to Henry VIII than that. Many few people know about his life and what he truly contributed to our world. Henry VIII was an almighty leader in England who won’t soon be forgotten.
Henry VIII became interested in the navy and toke on learning of new subjects. His new found interest led to the new design of war-like plans on France. Henry VIII followed an English army across the Channel in 1513, “and personally took part in the successful sieges of Therouanne and Tournay and the battle of Guinegate” (Jokinen, 2012), which led to the peace of 1514. Ferdinand deserted the English alliance and everything Spanish. There was talk of a divorce between Henry VII...
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.
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.
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.