This piece of legislation would later give him the power to over through Catholicism and would which later make him ‘Supreme Head’ of the Church in England. The Dissolution of the Monasteries still, to this day, represents the largest legal transfer of land, property and assets in English history, since the Norman Conquest in 1066. But to what extent can the Dissolution of the Monasteries be considered a landmark? The Dissolution of the Monasteries is down to two occurrences, public and private intensions. Within the public intensions the king wanted to bring the clergymen into the sphere of his subjects.
However one thing is certain, the victor will either be King Charles Stewart and his Royalist supporters or the men of Parliament with their supporters. It is despicable that Parliament refuses to accept the divine will of our great and noble King Charles. Parliament has been given a sound opportunity to listen to the will of our King yet they have chosen to ignore his will and as a result they have jeopardized our position as a force in Europe and worst of all they have committed high treason. Parliaments will regret allowing the five condemned Members of Parliament to escape justice; it is only a matter of time before they beg for forgiveness. We have a strong position in the West Country, the north and Wales and we firmly believe that the people will gladly support our sovereign in this conflict.
Firstly, Catherine of Aragon played a vital role in delaying the annulment from Henry because her links to Charles meant that Charles himself could intervene with the annulment. Also, after the Sacking of Rome in 1527, Pope Clement VII was taken prisoner and was really acting under Charles’ orders. Due to these circumstances, Catherine of Aragon used Charles V to delay the annulment for as long as she could. In Source 1, this is clearly shown in the words, “But that Charles was Catherine’s nephew”. From this I can infer that due to Catherine’s links to Charles, Catherine could use Charles to block or delay the annulment from Henry.
The aim of the marriages of Henry’s children into the royal houses of foreign powers was to establish the Tudor dynasty as rightful rulers of England. Acknowledgement of kingship was vital to Henry VII, who was a usurper of the English crown, and by marrying his family to foreign monarchs he could gain international recognition of his status. A suitable marriage would result in a foreign power having a vested interest in the Tudor dynasty so as to maintain peace between themselves and the new English rulers. The marriage of Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon was a prime example of this. Spain, which was united in 1469 by the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, had become a major power in Europe.
From the very beginning of her reign, Mary was aware of the necessity of producing an heir to ensure the restoration of Catholicism would be continued once she was gone. In order to produce an heir, she would need to find herself a husband. England had a long history of friendly relations with Spain (for example an alliance was forged by Henry VII and continued under Henry VIII), but the Privy Council though it to be unwise for Mary to marry Philip. They believed the marriage would be unpopular with those objecting Catholicism as it was suspected that England could become a pawn in Spanish ambitions to dominate Europe. On the contrary, the marriage would safeguard England as any heir Mary and Philip may have produced would have inherited the Netherlands and England.
What role did the New Model Army play in directing the political position of the Parliamentarians during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1642-60)? Discuss with reference to any two documents in Chapter 3 of the Anthology. The English Civil War, in one way or another, was a response to the aftermath of the Reformation which left behind political unrest and separate religious groups with indifferences and nonconformity. The Civil War affected everyone from commoners and the up and coming rising middle classes to the ruling aristocracy and Parliament. Parliament would eventually go on to create the New Model Army in response to events that surrounded Charles I, personal rule and his marriage to a catholic Queen Henrietta Maria, the daughter of Henry IV of France.
The Wyatt rebellion of 1554 was led by nobles principally Sir Thomas Wyatt from Kent, who along with other men of high authority, posed to end Mary Tudors reign. This was because of the attempts that Mary made to re catholicise England, which feared protestant standing men. This was combined with disapproval of many noblemen at the proposed marriage between Mary and Phillip of Spain. It is argued by some that the rebellion was poised a serious threat to Mary’s authority thus in the following essay I shall be exploring particular reasoning’s ultimately concluding with a judgement on how far I agree with the statement that ‘Wyatt’s rebellion was a serious threat to Mary’s authority.’. The origins of rebellion arose when people in England opposed Mary’s catholic standing and were worrying over the possible return of papal authority over England, since mary’s coronation was in 1553 she quickly placed people of catholic standing in positions within the kingdom, including many positions in the privy council the most influential body within the government.
He was of the belief that he was the rightful ruler of England. He was an heir to the King Magnus, this king had ruled before Edward the Confessor seized his throne. They all fought battles towards the throne. For all of Harold’s efforts to build armies, castles and vessels he was slain in an early battle. The English retreated and eventually accepted William of Normandy as victorious and their
For example, he re-introduced Ship tax, and believed in Divine Right. He also ruled for 11 years without calling for Parliament. One of the sparks was the fact that he married a french Catholic princess. Though the main spark was that Charles tried to arrest 5 MP's. Many people opposed the King for these reasons; Parliament and more importantly, Oliver Cromwell were one of these people.
Was Charles I seeking absolutism in his rule? The question of whether Charles I of England was trying to establish an absolutist rule while on the throne is still a hotly debated topic by historians even today. In January 1649, Parliament decided to put King on trial with the outcome of death if found guilty of treason. Parliament accused Charles of having a ‘wicked design to erect and uphold himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people”. Whether Charles meant to do what parliament had claimed he had done is another story that shall be explained in the course of this essay.