England was effectively bankrupt and on the edge of internal demise via privet feuds. The battle of St Albans can be pinned as the marking point for the start of the war,, but this would be highly unconventional to blame the conflict on one point such as this, as many other factors had been building up to this event since 1427 such as when Henry VI came of age. He was known as a puppet King, led by the government. It was this governmental rule that caused chaos amongst England and divided it as such, hope for the king to rule England efficiently with an iron hand seemed like an improbable dream. There was a massive loss of resources and income after the recline of land in France, leading to the powerful men of England to take arms in aid of their lords this lead to the battle of St Albans The weakness of royal power can be pin pointed to the king.
Is Richard II about Bolingbroke’s ambition or Richard’s incompetency? At the core of William Shakespeare’s allegorical play Richard II, the disparities between the abilities of Bolingbroke’s ambitions and Richard incompetence are explored in depth. Shakespeare’s prime impetus was to investigate a warning and voice concerns to the reigning monarch Queen Elizabeth I, that there could be catastrophic consequences if the Great Chain of Being was disrupted. Shakespeare projects Richard as a conniving and calculating character who overestimates his authority to such an extent that he fails to fulfil the duties of kingship. Richard shows a dangerous capacity for poor judgment and fascination with luxury, which deviate from the expectations of royalty.
On the 8th June 1042 Edward was crowned king and all through his years that led to his death on the 5th January 1066 he had made a lot of enemies, friends, promises, accusations and statements. These led to what was known as a succession crisis as other men thought they had the right to rule England as Edward had been given no son. In my answer I will note each potential successor (Edgar Atheling, Eustace of Boulogne, Ralph Mantes, Harald Hardrada and Swegn of Denmark) and why they, along with others, thought that they had the most chance to become King of England. When Edward died in the year 1066 Edgar was still just a young teenager with no militaristic skill not at all benefiting his rise to be king. Although this fact never over ruled peoples judgement of him to be king as many others Edgar the Peaceful and Edward the Martyr had succeeded the throne at a similar age to Edgar.
Henry VI was a weak character and personal issues, being mad and prone to favoritism among his nobles, was a major contribution to the Wars of the Roses. However also other factors such as his wife, Margret of Anjou, and the 100 years war between France is argued to have contributed majorly also. Henry VI suffered from mental illness, one personal problem he had. In 1453 England had lost Gascony, which is to be, said one of the reasons that lead to Henry’s mental break down which lasted 18 months. His condition was so bad he was said to have not even recognized the birth of his own son, Edward, which is a very proud moment for a king in the middle ages.
In Antigone, by Sophocles, The characterization Creon proves the quote to be true through his irrational decisions and edicts. His abuse of power is shown through Creon by forbidding anyone to give Polyneices an honorable burial and not listening to the prophet Teiresias. When Oedipus, King of Thebes, dies, his throne is left for his two sons Eteocles and Polyneices. When Eteocles refuses to share the throne, the two brothers go to war. Both are killed in the struggle for power.
"What is inaccurate, misleading, and merely tiresome is for modern writers to declare flatly that Richard is guilty or to retail as fact the outworn tale of Thomas More." (Kendall 2002, p 495) It cannot be escaped that Richard the Third remains the prime suspect in the mystery concerning the fate of Edward IV's young sons, Prince Edward and Prince Richard. His guilt came first from the insinuation of rumour and then became sensationalised by the pen of Sir Thomas More in his writing of Richard the Third's Biography. There are two significant reasons for Kendall holding More's work in such contempt, the first being that More wrote his account under pressure from the officious, almost paranoid rule of Henry VII, the first Tudor King who, in
How accurate is it to say that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were both serious threats to Henry VIII's security? Henry became king in 1485 after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth. His claim to the throne was weak and he took the crown at a time noblemen were constantly challenging the King's position. In view of these factors, it was no surprise for Henry’s position to be challenged. Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck both posed a threat to Henry's security for several reasons; mainly due to their explicit timing and foreign support.
Machiavelli would find Jefferson’s skepticism of immoral justification and Tyranny within the British government as antithetical towards his belief in successful power. He believes Jefferson’s opposition defies the principles of control, which is required to lead a successful power in his opinion. Here it is quoted, “The histoty of the present king of Great Britian is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations”(532) ;Thomas Jefferson states the government under the British crown is made up of flaws within the system and repeated abusement towards the people; he believes King George has stripped freedom and justice from the people, making him more than a mischievous king, but an absolute tyrant. In addition to his abusement in power, he has not only taken freedom from the people, but also their peace at mind; a ruler of this kind who breaks the laws of his own government and refuses to take any concern in protecting the physical and psychological security of his own people is unfit to be a ruler, according to Jefferson. Machiavelli believes security and freedom are unnecessary when ruling; if you give the people too much freedom, they will take advantage of it and they will possess the
His death posed the question of who was to succeed him, and while Charles II ultimately returned, alternative leaders attempted to govern first. To answer the question this essay must analyse the situation under Cromwell and the events that followed to ascertain whether the Commonwealth could have survived, or whether the power vacuum could only have been filled by the monarchy. In the civil war Parliament fought to preserve the ‘ancient constitution’[1] of King, Lords and Commons. Parliament made generous offers to the king, such as the ‘Heads of Proposals’ drawn up by Cromwell and army officers. Charles would have kept his crown and most of his power and be assured of the retention of bishops.
I personally think that Henry failed in his foreign policy because he didn’t end up gaining a full grasp on France, this was the main precedence. The initial aim was to capture more land, gaining more land meaning capturing France and knowing Henry’s ambitious mindset, he most probably had his whole mind set on creating an empire and France was a good place to start. Had Henry been what he said he was ‘a warrior king’ he wouldn’t have been used as a toy twice throughout this unsuccessful foreign policy. Charles took advantage of Henry. At the Battle of Pavia, the French were defeated and Francis along with his strongest supporters were held captive.