Some may say that Henry was largely successful in achieving his aims with his biggest success being the battle of the spurs in 1513. Henry VIII want to be seen as a different king to his father who had a bad reputation for being aware of his money and not engaging in many wars which the nobilities did not like. He started by giving away the crowns land and gave many titles to the nobilities to prove that he would be different to his father. Catherine of Aragon, who had married Henry’s brother Arthur was still kept in England after Arthur had died. Henry had immediately married her after all the delays that his father had caused.
These nobles expected a monopoly of influence over the king. As a result, the king had to perform a balancing act between expectations of the nobles and the King’s own freedoms of action to appoint his own councillors. The King needed to stop one faction from dominating and not exclude people of royal blood, something that Henry would struggle with. Although Henry was not directly responsible for the growth in power of the nobility, many of his actions certainly exacerbated the problem. More powerful nobles meant hat Henry had to dispense patronage fairly or risk upsetting and isolating powerful nobles.
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country. Henry's father, Henry VII, left the country in quite a stable state economically, but Henry devoted most of England's money into his campaigns to take over France, because he believed had a right to the Throne. To some extent source 4 supports the idea that the foreign policy did fail due to the lack of resources, because it states that “the young warrior family accepted the fact that royal finances could not support a repetition of the campaign of 1513”. This quote implies that the lack of resources seems to be the dominant reason for stopping Henry from invading France and therefore source 4 supports the statement to some extent. In source 4 we also learn that much must have depended on diplomatic relations with Maximilian and Ferdinand, however Henry’s allies proved unfaithful and unreliable.
In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same. In some cases all of the rulers passed reforms that they had no choice whether to or not, it was simply necessary. All of the Tsars wanted to uphold their autocratic position, Alexander III most of all due to what happened to his father, so keeping absolute control was essential. Nicholas II was the only tsar to make any major political reforms due to the Tsar’s wanted to keep their power. However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position.
Wolsey changed areas of government such as the justice system and revised areas such as finances and parliament structure. His relationship with the King was significant, as he would be the higher power and would need to negotiate with the King and yet still get the correct decision. Wolsey managed his relationship with henry well, he tried to get the right outcome for the country but never forced it upon Henry, not damaging their relationship and keeping Wolsey in power. Wolsey had a poor approach with justice; in court he gained a poor reputation for taking bribes and his relationship with England’s nobility was poor to say the least. The financial approach was a tough period in finance; with a King that wanted to spend and go to war, and Wolsey had no choice but to bow to his majesty’s request.
There are many historians that argue if the minority council had influence over the causes in either the long or short term causes of the War of the Roses. In John Gillingham’s book, ‘the War of the Roses,’ quotes that ‘the Lancastrian council ruled economically and well’,’ which meant that despite the ‘personal rivalries between the king’s uncles’ they made sure they kept it ‘confined to quarrels in the council chamber’ and the minority is described as being ‘remarkable’ due to the fact that the Anglo-Burgundian alliance
Fourth, their use of the feudal system, as well as the administration which accompanied it enabled them to keep their kingdoms and subjects in check. Whilst all these factors played a role, without the force of their armies behind them, the ruler’s control of the kingdom crumbled, marking out force as the most important factor enabling effective royal government. The use of force by rulers was crucial in establishing and maintaining effective royal government in the middle ages. By the victories of armies the rulers of kingdoms could be changed in a very short space of time, as the Norman conquest of England in 1066 aptly demonstrates. This ‘Right of Conquest’ gave rulers a legitimate claim to a throne because of their military might.
Henry VII Essay 18/5/2012 I think that Henry VII made a great leader, looking at all the key achievements of his here it makes me think that there can’t have been many kings as powerful, clever, and strong as hi. He was great militarily and financially but it is obvious that overall what he found easiest was being a great politician. His achievements of making alliances through marriage show that he must have been an extremely persuasive man to have so many relatives married to princes, princesses, queens and kings in other countries are proof of him being almightily powerful, possibly to the extent that he would never have been able to have his empire struck down. He was invincible in every way and form. Militarily he must have been strong because he kept on repelling off rebelling hordes and to take the English throne in the first place he must have had great tactics, as at the battle of Bosworth he was outnumbered and outgunned in the first hour of the battle yet
Both countries were turned against each other in a brutal war where both sides were decimated by deadly military innovations. A decline in the power of Feudalism could also be seen as the kings on both sides used hired mercenaries to fight for them instead of the usual peasants who followed the lords. But because so many fought and died in the war, peasants began to take more pride in their country. Soon enough, more people are looking up to the king than they are their own lords. Another reason feudalism lost power was the mercenaries that fought for the English king.