The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
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.
Becoming a governor in his region of Rome wasn’t good enough, he wanted to be crowned king and serve as a dictator for life, something that Rome didn’t have for five hundred years. His need for absolute power, to become greedy and to bring Rome under Monarchy corrupted him and altered his thinking. Instead of thinking about the Roman people, he was thinking about himself, and that made him a bad leader. Another reason that he wasn’t a good leader was that he was weak. Although he appeared to be strong to the commoners, he was seen as weak to his own Senate members, especially Cassius.
However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions. Frederick William IV was partially responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament as he was unwilling to accept the ‘crown from the gutter’. William IV was aware that acceptance of the leadership may lead to war with Austria. Austria had no wish to see a united Germany and wanted to keep it weak and divided in order to dominate. Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state.
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.
The second on the other hand, which was altered just before his death, had removed Elizabeth entirely. This left Elizabeth in a weak position, as she was opposed by so many powerful people, particularly Hastings and Gloucester. Gloucester had huge power in the north, and Hastings was a close friend of the now deceased King. The Woodville's had a close relationship with Prince Edward, and tried to use this to prevent Gloucester from assuming the role of protector. The Woodville's had hoped for an early coronation on the 4th of May, as Elizabeth knew this would mean that Gloucester would be undermined as the two princes Protectors.
Additionally, Henry's grasping nature was particularly unpopular among those expected to pay him and this stirred opposition making it difficult for Henry to collect revenues and improve financial stability. Henry took a particular interest in his finances and in the first two years of his reign Henry abandoned the Yorkist practice of using the chamber and instead decided to resume with the exchequer to take control of royal finances. However, by 1487 it was evident that this had been a major mistake. Due to Henry focusing on in hi security he neglected other important aspects of the crown like his estates. In Edward's reign
Charles had a conservative way of thinking. about things. He didn't want reformers coming in trying to change his religion and things. So this caused him to have a lonely but lowyal social life with his subjects. But his empire was way to big to be controlled so his subjects couldn't stay loyal for too long, because Charles had to many problems to deal with and only a
We've all noticed that portraits of Henry VII capture him as a very serious, timid and weak old creepy man who didn't really look as though he could take on the role of king in those times. However, after learning about how he claimed the throne, consolidated power and left a safe throne for his son my opinion seems to have changed. Over centuries Henry VII has been associated with the words 'cold, materialistic, miserly and rapacious', he may have spent money ruthlessly, but for someone who united the warring houses of York and Lancaster I find these words quite harsh. Whilst his marriage to Elizabeth of York could have be seen as an act of selfishness, it clearly showed wisdom and more importantly the fact that Henry envisaged peace. This was the perfect time and platform to use propaganda and create a godlike image for himself as it provided security for the country and reassured the people.