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. Other
advances made during his reign were the institution of an effective
navy and the beginnings of social and religious reform. The navy was
organized for the first time as a permanent force. Wales was
officially incorporated into England in 1536 with a great improvement
in government administration there.
In 1521, Henry had been given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the
pope for a treatise against Martin Luther, and he remained orthodox in
his personal doctrinal views throughout his reign. Even though the
rest of Europe was going through a reformation/renaissance Henry VIII
kept a traditional yet modern monarchy. When looking at the question,
was Henry VIII a conservative is a difficult task as modern politics
are different, so the meaning is a contrast. A conservative is a
person who in general opposes social change. This definition is true
to some extent in modern politics but due to rapid growth in the
nation, some meaning has been lost.
In Henry's early life was not unusual, he enjoyed many of the popular
sports including jousting,...
... middle of paper ...
... was revolutionary due to major changes in European policy and English
policy. Once separated from Rome, Henry could see his sovereignty over
the people. Which brought back sovereignty, which is party of a
conservative monarchy re-instating power over the masses. Elton's
theory is not one that should be ignored as it does prove to be
significant when studying a mixed view subject. I believe that is some
elements of Henry's reign his ministers were more powerful than
himself and perhaps his ministers were controlling the country at one
point, but overall Henry disposed of the powerful ministers, Wolsey,
was used as a scapegoat when Henry wanted a divorce, this caused
ex-communication from Rome and Cromwell abused his position and was
punished for it. Henry, once again showing Sovereignty and diminishing
Elton's theory.
training when he came to power in 1485, had managed in the time he was
Thomas Cromwell Is known as the architect of the English Reformation and legal advisor to King Henry VIII. However not many historians look into the life of Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell is notorious with the English Reformation. Every source on Cromwell speaks a little on the man himself, they focus on the part he played in the Kings “great matter”. Thomas Cromwell was a self taught man and struggled for everything he had. Cromwell began his journey to the Kings court in the most modest of ways. He left home at age fifteen because of a dispute with his father. His life before the reformation helped shape his decisions and his actions. Yet very few historians spend any real time looking at whom and what led Thomas Cromwell to become the Kings
war often, for the sake of his country, but when he did he put in a
The eighteenth century, a time of turmoil and chaos in the colonies, brought many opinionated writers to the forefront in support or refutation of the coming American Revolution. This highly controversial war that would ultimately separate the future United States of America from Great Britain became the center of debate. Two writers, both of whom supported the Revolution, now stand to fully illuminate one side of the debate. Thomas Paine, a radical propagandist, wrote many pieces during this time including “The Crisis Number 1” (1776). Through writing, he appealed to the “common man” in order to convince them to gather their arms and fight for their freedom. In this document, he utilizes many of the same rhetorical skills and propaganda techniques as Patrick Henry, a convincing orator, did in his famous speech delivered to the state’s delegates in 1775. Among these techniques are transfer, abstract language, and pathos. In both works, these were used to call the audiences to war. These influential pieces both contained a call to action which, through the use of strong and decisive language, aided the beginning of the American Revolution.
When Henry took the throne, he gave most of the responsibility to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. He did this because as a 17 year old boy, he felt he wasn’t ready for all of that responsibility at once (Sommerville). Even though he was king, he had no desire to know the everyday problems of England. One of Henry’s biggest accomplishments as king was implementing a naval fleet. He tried to get England to fight with Scotland and France (Scarisbrick 738).
The given documents are examples of the monarch’s ability to assert their authority through word. The different proclamations illustrate the problems of the time, and how the assumed power of the monarch addressed it. It is assumed that their power goes to include power over the church and all papal authority, ultimate power over Parliament, power over other lands, and it goes as far as suggesting that their power has been bestowed upon them by God. The assumed nature and extent of the Tudors’ power alters over time, each king reacting to a different situation. King Henry VII establishes a strong and clear claim to the crown for the Tudors when there were doubts about his claim. King Henry VIII extends the power of the monarch by annexing the
Peace of London in 1518, the Field of the Cloth of Gold and the Calais
Patrick henry is considered a rationalist, he wrote and took part in “give me liberty, or give me death” on march 23, 1775. In this work, we can see evidence of the characteristics, themes and style identified with the rationalist movement which was extant in American letters between 1750 and 1800. Patrick henry wrote during this time period of American literature, and as such, remains one of the most identifiable and iconic writers of his time.
The American Revolution modeled the path taken by a social and economic movement in many more aspects than that of a political and intellectual movement. Even though political reasons existed for the cause the Revolution, the revolution should be considered an economic movement based on the idea of “no taxation without representation.” The colonists believed that the British rule in the colonies was extremely unfair, but these intellectual causes are greatly outnumbered by economic causes such as taxes and trade.
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 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.
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the most richest and prosperous countries in Europe, but many of the peasants were not happy with the way France was being ruled. On July 14, 1789, peasants and soldiers stormed the Bastille and initiated the French Revolution. This essay will analyze the main causes of the French Revolution, specifically, the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate, and the Enlightenment. It will also be argued that the most significant factor that caused the French Revolution is the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
The term ‘revolutionary’ has been defined as something ‘involving or causing a complete or dramatic change’. The American Revolution did just that, with the colonises demanding economic, social and political change. Never before had all the colonies risen up against the British colonial rule, demanding change.
During the late 18th century, both France and the British colonies in America experienced wars the opened the eyes of nations. The French Revolution and American Revolution drastically changed political thinking. In the French Revolution, monarchism was abandoned and political power was given to the people until the country became out of control, and a military dictatorship was necessary to regain control of France. In the American Revolution, a new nation was formed as the British colonies tore themselves away from the English monarchy. In the end, both France and the new United States of America moved away from absolute rule by a king or queen and wanted to put the political power in the hands of their people. However, there are many differences as well as similarities along the way to their political reformation.
Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I may have been the English Reformation’s greatest benefactors, all because of self interest. Henry VIII was not originally Protestant, but after the pope denied him of his divorce, Henry VIII took things into his own hands. Due to the power kings had in the Middle Ages, Henry VIII was able to control Parliament and force it to do whatever he wanted. So in 1534, Henry VIII forced Parliament to pass a law he made known as the Act of Supremacy. The Act of Supremacy stated that the king ought to be the head of the Church of England. This law gave the king complete power over the Church of England, instead of the pope. However, the type of church and state relationship did not change. Rather all the Act of Supremacy did was take power from the pope and give it to the king. Surprisingly, the Catholics did not retaliate against this strong change. The pope had always been the head of the church, but now the king had taken his position. This serves as an example of nationalism. The Catholics did not think about how removing the pope could harm their religion in any way. However, instead the people blindly followed Henry VIII because he was the leader of the nation and they assumed he was right. Also, by imposing other laws that punished Protestants, Henry VIII did not give the people much of a choice. Fortunately, for Henry VII, nationalis...