The Restoration of Strong Government Under Henry VII
Henry VII’s relations with the nobility are controversial, but views
of his success are subjective. When discussing degrees of success,
there must be criteria on which to judge the subject. In this case
‘restoration of strong government’ can be measured by a close study of
what Henry VII set out to achieve and whether he fulfilled his aims.
He appreciated the nobility’s importance in local governance and did
not want to ‘crush’ them, but merely control and limit their power,
preventing rebellion and civil war. This essay examines the level of
success Henry had in implementing his methods.
I agree to an extent that the nobility was the main cause for the
re-establishment of strong government, but there are other reasons
into the restoration of strong government, which are key causes as
well.
In the aftermath of the War of the Roses, Henry was aware that an
understanding with the nobility was vital for stability and security.
Restricting their numbers helped to ensure this. In medieval England,
a rigid social hierarchy formed the basis of the system of governance.
However, during the civil wars, the nobility took the law into their
own hands “acting as quasi-kings in their own localities”. This
seriously undermined the monarchy. To prevent this problem form
resurfacing, Henry VII limited the number of peerage families by not
creating many new nobles. For example, Edward IV created, in total,
nine earls, two viscounts, and thirteen barons as well as rewards of
dukedoms to existing peers. Henry VII created once earl and five
barons, promoting his uncle, Jasper Tudor, from Earl o...
... middle of paper ...
...ority, Henry successfully managed to control the influence
of the nobility without causing resentment.
Henry succeeded in controlling the nobility by creating few new
peerages, thereby limiting their numbers. He also enforced laws
against livery and maintenance firmly without fear or favour. In the
last few years of his reign, when due to Arthur’s death he felt
insecure; Henry began to use the system of bonds and recognisance’s
harshly. This resulted in a backlash from the nobility after his
death. In spite of his harshness, Henry still made good use of the
nobility to help him rule both local and national level and they were
an important presence in the Royal Council too. Early Tudor England
was a society that believed in good rule from above and in providing
this for his subjects Henry’s nobility played a key role.
Due to the unstable political environment of the period 1399-1509, royal power varied from monarch to monarch, as parliament’s ability to limit this power fluctuated. There are several factors in limiting royal power, including the king’s relationship with parliament, royal finances and a king’s popularity, often due to military success. The most significant of these factors, however is the king's finances, as one of parliament's primary roles was to consider the king’s requests for taxation, and thus denying these requests would have been one of the few ways to effectively limit royal power.
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 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.
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.
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
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
...tect his right to the throne. Ultimately, he stabilized the nation by settling the civil wars, the Wars of Roses, by marrying the apposing York family, to unite the two feuding families, the Yorks and the Lancasters. All together, King Henry VII is a new monarch for displaying all of the required traits.
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.
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
In Political Testament, Cardinal Richelieu explains that the nobility is something to be used as a tool, a perpetual game of appeasement and request of services. He understood that the nobility could be a nuisance and a body of dissent against the King, but that they were necessary to the crown to provide military aid and money. Richelieu explains that one must know how to manage and manipulate them: “To take away the lives of these persons, who expose their lives every day for a pure fancy of honor, is much less than taking away their honor and leaving them a life which would be a perpetual anguish for them. All means must be used to maintain the nobility in the true virtue of their fathers, and one must also omit nothing to preserve the advantages they inherited.” ...
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.
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.
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.