In source 4 we also learn that much must have depended on diplomatic relations with Maximilian and Ferdinand, however Henry’s allies proved unfaithful and unreliable. Source 4, is written by a member of the Government of England. The government is who Henry and Wolsey would go to for Money for these situations. The Government did not like how much Money Henry kept asking for so this could have been reflected in Keith Randall’s report. Henry spent 1.4 millions pounds on fighting wars between 1511-25 and this set England back a far way.
Henry had immediately married her after all the delays that his father had caused. Everything had seemed to be going to plan but later he faced major problems because of his decisions. Henry was largely successful in being different to his father. The nobility liked Henry and saw him as a true king because he had engaged in war where his father never did. Henry also wanted England to be a major power in international affairs.
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. he only helped the church when it best suited him and didn’t listen to the barons . Based on my finding, I believe that the Magna Carta was one main reason as to why the rebellion started because and that king john only signed the Magna Carta so that he could build up his army the barons rebelled for a number of reasons including the trust between the king and the
It is correct that he supported the American Revolution, which nearly bankrupted him- but without his support, America may not have won Her independence. When he ascended the throne, Louis inherited a country in terrible debt. The people of France also deeply resented his grandfather and the nobility who were seen as despots. So he started out on a bad foot. Men named Turgot and Malesherbes
The chance of Henry being heir to the throne was in the smallest percentile. this was an huge barrier to overcome in order for Henry to rise to power although this barrier soon cease to exist as Arthur dies at the early age of 15 the cause of his death was unknown. the death of Arthur meant the destruction of the foreign treaty made by marriage between Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon and HENRY VII and this was the only foreign alliance his father had and this treaty kept out the threat of an invasion by France which was a formidable enemy. For the fact that this was the only foreign treaty/alliance made by his dad was also implied as a threat as the source said “His grip on the English throne had long been considered both illegitimate and untenable by most European powers“ this implies that England as an international power was weak, ineffective and the finance of England wasn’t the greatest compared to the rich and powerful France and this was a continuous threat that HENRY VIII as the king of England faced after a betrayal from Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon of Spain and also a failed invasion of France and now this caused an even more problematic issue as England faced multiple threat without the foreign treaty of Spain by the Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon. Even after the betrayal of Spain England would always be
The English Civil War Why did parliament defeat King Charles? In 1642, a civil war broke out between the King’s army, (king Charles 1’s Cavaliers) and Parliaments army (The Roundheads, called roundheads because of their short hair). This was over wealth, money, power and religion. Parliament’s roundheads (Stalemates) had MP’s, Merchants, Puritans, Leeds and Bradford supporting them. Most people thought that the roundheads were going to win because they had experienced leaders that had previously been in a civil war, Oliver Cromwell and Thomas Fairfax.
Henry had to bring stability back to England. The king needed to win over the nobles if he was to remain secure as king, he needed a positive relationship with them. There were some nobles who did support Henry because of their Lancastrian backgrounds, then there were some that supported him due to them seeing him as mean to social and political advancement, then there were the nobles that opposed him; the Lambert and Warbeck rebellions show this. Getting the nobles to support him was a huge challenge that would take years for the king to accomplish as there were more nobles than the king. Over the course of the fifteenth century the English nobility had grown in power, however Henry VII was quite fortunate that 25% of leading noble lines had died out.
There were also reports that John severely punished his enemies and used the courts to help his friends. He was also accused of killing his own nephew Arthur because he was a rival to his throne. Most of these reports on John were written by monks and these were unreliable because John had quarrelled with their leader the Pope. This meant only a few monks were unbiased and wrote truthfully about John. For example another source this time written by a monk in Barnwell said that John was a good ruler and that his own men should not have deserted him.
Thomas Becket was an influential person of the Middle Age history due mainly in part to his highly ranked position and great honor for the church along with his people, and his legendary murder. In 1662, Thomas Becket was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the most important religious position in England, by good friend and king, Henry II. During Henry’s reign, the Church had its own courts and any member of the Church could decide to be tried in a Church court rather than a royal court. Church courts tended to give out easier punishments to their men who had done wrong, and Henry saw this as a weakness in his authority (Thomas). According to historians, Becket was only appointed the position in hopes that Henry would receive more power
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.