If it cannot be pinned on, what A.J Pollard can be quoted as calling, his overall astounding “antipathetic nature towards to the chivalric world his ancestors had adored”, it can definitely be blamed on what A.J Pollard called his “improvident, malleable, vacillating and partisan” personality. Due to Henry’s careless habit of only rewarding his friends (mainly Suffolk and Somerset) he managed to create tension in the council as well as creating an imbalance of power between himself and his subjects. In addition, Henry let his wife, Margaret of Anjou have a semblance or power over the happenings at court which further created unease. Pope Pius II proved his dislike for Henry and his failures at leadership by showing obvious displeasure at the fact that a large amount of decisions were “left to his wife’s hands”. As Margaret of Anjou was a woman and French, there was much aversion to her having a say in the King’s court which damaged the king’s image both locally and internationally.
Edward IV's reigns had faced many problems because of Warwick. Firstly Warwick believed Edward had not rewarded him enough by giving him the captain of Calais. Whilst other nobles such as William Herbert were also rewarded with high titles such as Lieutenant of South Wales. This had begun to create problems between Warwick and Edward, to add to insult Edward would not let Clarence marry Warwickshire daughter Isabel. As a result Edward decided to remove the Archbishop of York who had approved the marriage.
Edwards marriage to Woodville was said to show favouritism as he subsequently gave the Woodville family titles and arranged the best marriages possible for Elizabeth’s sister, meaning that Warwick’s daughters did not get the desired marriages. This alienated Warwick and made him resent the King. The lack of land an titles given to the kings brother, George duke of Clarence also alienated him, making him and Warwick join together to become over mighty and eventually end in 3 rebellions lead by Clarence and Warwick. These rebellions prove that Edward did not deal effectively with his over might subjects or nobles as the eventually ended up deposes him and putting Henry IV back on the throne. Overall, I think that although Edward had some successes, for example showing Warwick at the
The loss of English territories in France was the main cause of York’s hatred of Somerset and worsened the relationship between Henry and York, whose relationship was already strained because of the court faction’s suspicions of York’s intentions and fears of attainder. York and the Neville’s wanted to see better governance and for Henry to regard them equally as the Beaufort’s. The feud between Somerset and York was because York felt dishonoured by Somerset’s easy surrender of Rouen and other lands of York’s appanage in 1450. As the son of Richard, Earl of Cambridge; who was executed for treason against Henry V, York was sensitive to the issue of family honour. He presented an article to the king in 1452, criticising Somerset for his failure to defend Rouen from attack and his surrender of Rouen in 1449 despite soldiers protesting.
Why did the barons rebel against king john? In this essay I will explain as to why I think the barons rebelled against king john in 1216: In order to be a good king you have to be good at your job you can’t be weak, king john lost most of his empire due to being weak he was a weak fighter and a weak king and if for example England were under attack then they would lose and if the king loses that make that barons lose and that didn’t show to England or the barons that king john was a good enough king .In order to be a good king you have to be trustworthy and King John didn’t prove to be trustworthy because everyone believed that he killed his nephew Arthur and if his as so audacious enough to kill his own family then wouldn’t he be as so brave to kill anyone. Even though, king john wasn’t the best of kings but not everything he did was bad he did win the battles against wales and Scotland and he improved the ships and made them stronger not only that he made sure that the trails in court were fairer and that made England richer. He did help the poor he fed 1000 paupers each year but some people believe that he could have done more to help. He was also a good king because he looked good and he kept law and order yet in the rest of his jobs he was quite a bad king for example when he did help the church etc.
In his view, the end to political instability justifies the means no matter how shady they may be. He states, “Many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality. For there is such a difference between the way men live and the way they ought to live.... because anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not good.” (Machiavelli p.186) Many of the virtues advocated for in The Prince are apparent in Claudius’ character from William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. Hamlet tells of the various activities that take place during a questionable shift of royal power in Denmark. It is the acquisition and maintenance of this power that shows just how Machiavellian Claudius’ character is in the play.
The most important factor for Edward being able to take the throne was due to Henry’s weakness as if he wasn’t weak Edward would not have been able to usurp the throne. The loss of France was a massive blow to the English nobility. Wars in France gave them a sense of purpose and more land supporting them. The humiliating defeats there reflected badly on Henry VI. In 1450 England lost
It didn’t help matters when he had a mental breakdown in 1453 which rendered him useless to the country and left the throne to Richard of York to become the protector. He was seen as a weak king as he did not like to fight on the battlefield and many regents called into service which suggests that Henry was not capable to ruling as king. Corruption within the local and national governments was partially caused by favouritism, an example of someone the King had shown particular favour upon would be William De La Pole (the duke of Suffolk) who had later fallen out of favour by opposing the King in his views towards the war in France. He had later found himself banished, and ended up washed up on the shores of Devon, beheaded. The main reason for his banishment being that he had wanted to continue with the war in France whereas the king wanted peace.
Henry Tudor was a well known contender for the throne and was in fact planned by Richard III to be murdered but it was either Richard III’s fate or luck that made Henry Tudor slip away from him. But a much more evident reason is that Henry Tudor was the least of his concern. For the reason that immediately after putting Buckingham on trial and ending the revolt by rebels, he turned his attention towards the war against Scotland. He injected high funds into the campaign to go all out and win the war despite James III of Scotland’s desire for peace. It was undoubtedly unnecessary but for Richard III it was a mere opportunity to prove his credentials to the public and regain their support.
In the political development of New England, the Puritans influenced the region by basing the political structure on a theocratic model that enforced firm moral obedience. When the Puritan settlers founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, their leader, John Winthrop, made it his mission to create a colony that would serve as an example of the ideal society that the Puritans hoped to create (Doc A). As a result, New England produced laws that enforced the Puritans’ strict moral code. This mixture of morality into Puritan politics led to a bold response; For example, when Roger Williams called for more religious tolerance in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, challenging authority of the Puritan hierarchy (Doc F), the Puritan colonial leaders banished him in 1636. This action led to the founding the colony of Rhode Island as a safe place for religious dissidents.