How successful was Henry VII in dealing with challenges to his royal authority in the years 1489-1499? 24 marks In the years 1489 to 1499, Henry dealt with three domestic uprisings, as well as foreign wars. The main challenges to his authority as king came from rebellions and pretenders to the throne. The fact that he was still on the throne until 1509 shows that he was successful at dealing with these challenges and was a capable and effective ruler. The Yorkshire rebellion in 1489, which was due to people in Yorkshire having to pay taxes for a war in Brittany, was not really a success for Henry; although he dealt with it sufficiently for it not to seriously affect his reign, it was not as much a success as he might have hoped.
This makes his appearance seem more imposing but apparently “repulsed people.” This shows that henry VIII changed the era of Tudor kingship because he showed that kings don’t have to be strong and good looking because by the end of his reign he was in a very poor shape. Henry VIII had many hobbies some of which are good and some of which are not so good. Firstly he liked hunting on horseback. This kept him very fit and made him good at fighting and hunting. This was one of his good hobbies.
Why did the Normans win the Battle of Hastings? Introduction On October 14th 1066, William ll of Normandy came head to head in a battle with King Harold ll in hope to win the throne of England, as Edward the Confessor had not awarded it to him before his death. Harold was killed during the battle, therefore losing it and the throne of England. William was crowned King of England. In this essay, it will be necessary to discuss why William Duke of Normandy and his army won the Battle of Hastings.
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.
Another example is when Charles delayed 6 weeks at Edinburgh to allow George II to regain hardened troops from Holland, if this hadn't happened then Charles would have been able to strike much more fear in the Londoners. Bonnie Prince Charlie's lack of strategy was the most apparent causes of his failure and it would of made the invasion much swifter. If he had organized his strategy better he would have probably if not definately won. Leadership is the ability to lead a group.Leadership could have made the men more efficient in their fighting and a clear understanding of the enemy would have given him an advantage.The immaturity of Charles would have been a key factor to consider eg; At Prestonpans Charles didn't take George Murray's advice, and the arrogance and self-belief of Charles cost the army many opportunitys to invade. Also because of Charles' arrogance he treated the Scottish Clans as total inferiors and took no notice of their customs.
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.
On the 8th June 1042 Edward was crowned king and all through his years that led to his death on the 5th January 1066 he had made a lot of enemies, friends, promises, accusations and statements. These led to what was known as a succession crisis as other men thought they had the right to rule England as Edward had been given no son. In my answer I will note each potential successor (Edgar Atheling, Eustace of Boulogne, Ralph Mantes, Harald Hardrada and Swegn of Denmark) and why they, along with others, thought that they had the most chance to become King of England. When Edward died in the year 1066 Edgar was still just a young teenager with no militaristic skill not at all benefiting his rise to be king. Although this fact never over ruled peoples judgement of him to be king as many others Edgar the Peaceful and Edward the Martyr had succeeded the throne at a similar age to Edgar.
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 king was defeated at the Battle of Hastings in the fourteenth of October 1066 (165-169). The Duke was crowned the king at London on Christmas Day of the same year. The new king then went ahead to exercise his newfound power to influence the running of state affairs. He also introduced new changes to the ruling class and the society. He also provided land for his followers who then proceeded to settle in England.
Why and How did Richard III make himself king? * Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was empowered by his marriage to Anne Neville, heir too much of Warwick’s estate. * Edward IV’s immediate successor was his son (Edward V) and facing a desperate struggle against the ambitions of the Woodville family, he knew he had to remove Edward V (Elizabeth Woodville’s son) from power. * He had the support of William, Lord Hastings and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. * Whilst Richard was being protectorate to Edward V’s minority, the Duke of Buckingham was challenging the legitimacy of Edward V by saying his father was already contracted to marry when he married Elizabeth Woodville.