Whilst Flambard’s role was very much to increase Crown revenues, in preparation of an invasion of Normandy, under Henry I the role was built upon. He appointed Roger of Salisbury to oversee administration, justice and taxation, even appointing him head of the Exchequer in 1110. Whilst under William I men such as Odo of Bayeux and Lanfranc had minor roles when William was out of the country, they did not have the power to implement reform. However, the fact that William, who ruled over more land than either of his sons under more difficult circumstances, did not appoint a vice-regent shows that the role may not have been as important to English administration as it is sometimes thought, although at the time the country was not as centralised as it would become under Henry. Instead of the need for someone to implement reform and change, under later English Kings after William I it may have been that a figure was required to oversee the system and enable the King to depart the country to protect his interests on the Continent.
The reign of Henry VII brought a new form of monarchy that differed from the other late medieval kings. Discuss. There are a number of reasons why Henry VII’s reign can be considered as a time of change and transformation. Henry VII had a different upbringing to most of the other late medieval kings so he was able to bring different ideas to the form of the monarchy. However, there are some arguments which oppose this suggestion as it can be thought that Henry VII’s reign was more of a development on previous policies rather than a system which differed from the earlier monarchs.
Prior to this Spain was not considered a great power and had little significance across Europe. However, with the joint rule of Ferdinand and Isabella it now appeared that Spain was becoming a more authoritative country, with stability and unification. Under the rule of Ferdinand and Isabella Spain saw much more emphasis on law and order with better local government with the Santa Hermandad and the corregidores, also the formation of the Inquisition in 1478, which ensured Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms, all led to
This facilitated him to becoming the most superior individual and increased overall royal power by building up political influence in the latter years. In 1534 the act of supremacy was passed declaring Henry VIII Head of the English Church in both temporal and spiritual matters. This was the heart of the Henrician reformation as it signified the break with Rome and necessitated other changes, for example, changes in the role and function of parliament, extension of central government in localities, changes in religious practice, destruction of existing institutions and development of new ones. By 1536 royal supremacy in the Church and state was widely accepted showing an increase in royal power as outside powers, such as the Papacy, no longer had influence within England and was seen as the start to a Tudor revolution in government. Elton – Cromwell architect of tudor revolution in govt 1536 – dissolution of monasteries – transferred property to crown, improved royal finances & gained favour and support by selling off church lands to gentry and nobility.
As first proclaimed in 1823 by President James Monroe, the implicit nature was a passive statement to the Easter Hemisphere. It promised the protection of territories within the Western Hemisphere and gave hope and inspiration to the people that the United States will continue their passive protection. However, with the actions and voice of President Polk, certain political, social, and cultural factors changed the attitudes of the policy and the people. This shift to an aggressive policy changed the world’s outlook towards the United States and established the vast expansion of the North American territory as a great and powerful
I agree with the view that the dissolution of the greater monasteries was largely driven by financial motive. This is a view supported by both evidence, and the views of other historians, such as T.A.Morris. However, there are also several historians, such as Arthur Innes, and some bits of historical evidence that disagree with the view, seeing other reasons, such as political maneuvering, as more important causes. The first piece of evidence that supports the view is in Source 9, the letter to the Earl of Sussex. This supports the view because it says, “Look to the king’s profit and make sure all parties shall be contented.” This supports the view that finance was a key part of the dissolution because the King’s profit is highlighted as an important part of the letter, so it was obviously an important part of the Earl’s task.
However, there is also the contrasting argument from historians, such as Peter Ling, that whilst Martin Luther King participated in some important events in the movement that represented the process of change, his role in the Civil Rights Movement and the amount of transformation he actually achieved could have been exaggerated greatly. Several historians have afforded him elevated status in the Civil Rights Movement, which may not be justly deserved as King can be regarded as merely a spokesperson throughout this time rather than a leader. Many events during this period actually started successfully without him, for example the Albany campaign, and King took egotistical moves in ensuring that he received credit for these crucial events. The Civil Rights movement symbolised a real process of change throughout America, many factors contributed in gaining equal rights for African Americans during this time. It is therefore a debated opinion of whether Martin Luther King can be considered responsible for the political,
This is a relationship on his mothers side and though not all evidence is definitive, name origins, place of living and ethnicity support this finding. A powerful leader in our country has origins tracing back too Jamestown and the beginning of a very negative element in history for america. This relationship confirms our connection with Jamestown. A key element in preserving History and being able to prove findings at all is through revisions and re-connections. History can be a very subjective thing and many historical facts have changed over time based on new and more substantial evidence.
It can be likened to the lobbying process of 20th century politics in that the contribution of wealth to an organization is done to further one's one interests and enterprises. In this context, the obituary not only serves as a record of the deceased, but as a valuable piece of information regarding both the people and politics of Pre-Modern people. The importance of any Pre-Modern record is invaluable to any medieval historian, especially when it regards such as complete piece as the Obituary of the Temple of Reims. Through the obituary, one can determine the people and the wealth in which they lived in, the leaders of the church, and in this particular necrology, the time and place of the Templars. Necrologies such as this obituary leave a legacy not only for the individuals of that era, but for the people of today when researching the history of the individuals of Pre-Modern
HOW DID WILLIAM GAIN CONTROL OF ENGLAAND BY 1086? William, Duke of Normandy and King of England, needed to gain control of England after a big victory when the Normans defeated the English in 1066. Some of the short-term problems were the fact that Dover castle was full of English soldiers, London was under the control of the English troops and there was also a threat of invasion in the north by Vikings with English support. William overcame these problems quickly and with ease. However there were still some long-term problems.