King John

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.

When examining the problems of English society, More points out that another of the main contributing factors is the centralized kingship of the country. More says, "it is generally agreed that a king can do no wrong, however much he may want to, because everything belongs to him, including every human being in the country...". (More, 61) Because the king has so much power over his country and his land, there is nothing to assure that the people under his command can lead happy and healthy lives.

The second example john acted selfishly is when he ripped up the confession he in essence said that the welfare of his wife and children was not worth lying and preserving his name. He ripped it up and publicly declared it

He then failed to re-marry and achieve stronger diplomatic relations outside of England following the death of Elizabeth creating a weak government in England. Also the death of Isabella of Castile was another problem for Henry as he would have Ferdinand as his rival instead of an ally over territorial gains in Europe and in the New World. The later years of Henrys foreign policy were definitely his most challenging and difficult period of foreign affairs allowing the government to be weak and therefore vulnerable to a crisis.

conclusion the King had murdered his father, he planned for revenge, but acting it out came very

The issues between Pope Boniface and King Philip IV relate to the case of Thomas Backet and Henry II because both disputes were conflicts between church and state. Henry II thought that by electing Beckett as his Archbishop he would be able to rule over the church and the state. However, Becket did not give Henry that power and he would eventually be assassinated.

He was known for beginning to abuse his power against the nobles. He had almost unlimited power and he took advantage of it by demanding big amounts of money without talking to nobles. After losing a war, he had to make sure that the nobles would support him so he had agreed to sign a “royal charter” called the Magna Carta. A result of King John signing the Magna Carta he agreed that he would no longer abuse his power.

John of Damascus argues in favor of Icons. He begins with a definition of images and worship. He argues that an image is a representation of “invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light” (John of Damascus, 1). This definition is attractive, especially when applied to religious figures because it provides worshippers with a better understanding of God and His decrees. John argues that God permits images, such as the ark, the staff, and the tabernacle (2). John affirms, “I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter…” (2). According to John, God reduced himself to matter for worshippers to create visual representations of God. These images represent the

As King John I grew up with his father as king, he was able to learn how to govern a country, and how he would lead the people when he later became king. As a Child, feud between family members was common. John often fought with his brother, and John’s mother was seen as his father’s prisoner (English Edward). Since there was conflict in John’s life as a child, conflict surfaced later on during his reign against other government officials and countries. Even though John was his father’s favorite son, he was not heir to his father’s throne and it took John many years to become king. John’s older brother Richard was the heir to the

One fact that proves that the King was a cruel, unfair man is that he took the ships of his people, burned their villages and killed many people. Another fact that proves he is a cruel, unfair man is that he carried out several acts of war. He also caused a rift between slaves and their owner, made the slaves angry and violent, and tried to convince the Indians to go to war against the colonists. This is a major issue because a King should never kill anyone unless it's an act of self defense. A King also shouldn’t be committing crimes like burning villages and taking

1 John was written by John sometime between 90-95 AD as a personal letter to believers. He is writing concerning the assurance of eternal life as it seems though perhaps some had some doubts as to whether or not they were really saved because of sin. They key word throughout the entirety of the book is fellowship. He discusses some of the hindrances to fellowship, conditions for fellowship, and the benefits of fellowship. He was really trying to encourage the believers to live a Christian life that will lead to assurance. His secondary purpose was to refute Gnosticism and the false teachings related to it that denied some of the aspects of Christ. 1 John 1:5-2:2 is a discussion of the basis for fellowship to emphasize the main objective of

the traits of a “good king”. He was a warrior with extraordinary abilities which made him seem

Many English monarchs believed in the divine right to rule. This right was given to them by God, therefore they believed that no one could take their crown or it would destroy the rightful line of succession. However, this was not always the case and some kings such as Richard II had their crown forced from them. If a king believed in the divine right he often had a close relationship with God. In William Shakespeare’s comedies, the divine right to rule a kingdom is present in the ways in which Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V are come to rule England. Both Richard II and Henry V were powerful rulers, whose ruling was heavily dictated by their divine right to rule and their relationship with God. Through exploring the King’s relationship to God in Shakespeare’s tragedies Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V, one can see that Henry V is the ideal Christian King.

Eventually, Richard was killed in another military exploit and John was crowned king in April of 1199. John has been characterized as one of the worst English kings in history and it largely seems to be a correct portrayal. John lost the duchy of Normandy to King Phillip of France, giving Phillip the resources he would later need to wage war against England. The loss of this territory left John living in England where “his disagreeable personality brought him into regular conflict with his barons.” John was also very determined to reconquer “Normandy and the rest of his lost French lands [which] drove him to an extortionate form of government…he devoted himself to squeezing as much money as humanly possible out of his subjects, particularly his barons and the Church.” To make matters worse, John treated hostages and prisoners abominably and may have killed his nephew.