This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
How successful was Edward IV management of the Royal Finances? Edward IV inherited the throne from Henry VI who had left the Crown in serious debt, therefore it was up to Ed to right this by earning not only enough to run the country, but also to pay back the debt. Furthermore a medieval king was expected to “live of their own” which meant that they should be able to afford the running of the country through their own lands and not need to ask parliament for tax which leads onto my next point in which the king should not rely on Parliamentary grants too much. I think that to a large extent, Ed was successful in managing the Royal Finances because I think that he fulfilled all of the criteria. Firstly, he was successful in managing the royal finances by innovatively using the Royal Chamber to efficiently manage the royal income.
This was a sum of money granted by parliament for emergencies, including war or defence. Edward was aware that he had a good backing from his parliament and that they were prepared to help him when the country felt threatened. However, Edward was careful not to abuse this right as he had learnt from previous Lancastrian kings who had taken advantage of parliament, forcing
A king shall make and interpret the law and have authority over everyone in his kingdom. King James I trusted that because he implements the law he shall abide by them at his will, but only as he sees fit. Cardinal Richelieu of France, Louis XIV of France, and James I of England all considered absolutism to be important in ruling a country. Only one powerful ruler could anticipate his subjects to follow in his rule. Absolutism reigned powerful with Louis XIV and James
From 1536 the royal court was at the heart of the government and power lay with the king. However, to exercise it effectively he relied on a bureaucracy supervised by the Council and the co-operation of both the nobility and Church. When the king intervened with the parliament and governments his power was at its strongest forming a King-in-Parliament. The whole arrangement of appointments was held by patronage where both the king and those close to him acted as patrons putting forward their clients for position and office to ensure Henry could depend on each and every one to support him in order to succeed a Henrician Reformation. This facilitated him to becoming the most superior individual and increased overall royal power by building up political influence in the latter years.
How successful was Edward VI in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470? Edward IV enjoyed successes and also failures in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470. Edward had some successes in dealing with over mighty subjects, for example, his marriage to Elisabeth Woodville shows that he was not controlled by an over powering Warwick. This was important as it showed both Warwick and the rest of the country that he was not controlled by Warwick and could make his own decisions. Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor.
This helped Peter strengthen his rule as he was able to consolidate this through military success. Peter’s success as a warrior was recognised by the award of the epithet “the Great” after the treaty of Nystadt, and it could be argued that military victories, which encouraged patriotism and raised the Tsar’s popularity, were the only factor which prevented a coup, such was the opposition to his domestic reforms. Therefore foreign assistance in this field was of paramount importance, as it was this invaluable military strength that allowed him to further his
HST 12 - c. richard During times of great instability and chaos, a country or a nation needs a strong leader to bring forth a good change in favor of the country or nation. In many European nations, monarchy was the result of the want for a greater and stronger nation. The monarchy form of government is “based upon the undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person” and “the individual ruler who functions as the head of state and who achieves his position through heredity.” (“Monarchy”) Although many abused their powers, few monarchs are the sole creditors for the result of what many of the European nations are today. One great example of a monarch, who brought his nation in par with many successful European nations of the time, is Peter The Great, or Peter I, of Russia.
This was one of the ways in which he rebuilt the royal finances which eventually left his son with a fortune. He also used dynastic royal marriages to establish his dynasty in England and help maintain peace. One of the marriages arranged was between his daughter, Margaret Tudor and James IV of Scotland. This showed that Henry took his vision of peace seriously as it meant that James' descendants would have claim to the throne. Overall, although Henry's reign faced hardships by plots and conspiracies against him it is said that 'by the standards of his time, the king was remarkably merciful in dealing with those who threatened his throne', which again contradicts the traditional characteristics associated with him.
He had access to a standing royal army that was loyal only to him. A career in the military appeared to be one worth pursuing for someone with a noble background. The standing army was a symbol of an absolute monarch’s authority and a ruler’s power was based and enforced by it. For those on the receiving end of absolutism, the army played a key role. In absolutist states, the army invariably collected taxes; a large part of this revenue was invested in the army which got larger and more powerful; a larger army was capable of becoming even more effective at collecting taxes which were then further invested in the army.