More's Influence On Wolsey And Henry

One area that Wolsey did try to reform was England’s legal system. England mainly used common law at that time however civil law was seen as more modern and was favored in southern Europe. Civil law was used in the King’s council when it acted as a court of law. As Lord Chancellor Wolsey had oversight over the legal system in England. The law awakened Wolsey’s intellectual interest. He was a judge in the Chancery Court and handled disputes over wills, contracts and property. He had successfully reformed the Star Chamber where he was determined to get rid of corruption. He made it much fairer, cheaper and more efficient and was not afraid to take on the powerful. He had the Earl of

Wolsey was a cardinal and statesman, Henry’s lord chancellor and most faithful servant, whom he was most reliant upon. From 1515 to 1529 Wolsey’s rule was undisputed. Henry VIII delegated more and more state business to him, including near complete control of England’s foreign policy. Wolsey’s finest hour was arranging the Field of Cloth of Gold. Wolsey used his wealth to indulge his passion for building, his grand style of living made him increasingly unpopular. Wolsey’s failure to arrange an annulment for Henry was quickly followed by his downfall. In this essay I will look how far this was the main reason for his collapse

This shift from promoting an ideal 'Utopia ' in his work to openly and aggressively defending the Catholic Church is one of the first examples of the Reformations affect on changing political discourse from criticisms to open violent outbursts and pleas of aggression. Adding to this further is More 's response to Tyndale in 1531, where More states the Reformation is a genuine danger to all of Catholic society4. More was eventually executed but stated “I die the Kings faithful servant, but Gods First”5 revealing although More hated the Reformation, he had stood by his religious values, including his King, making his political writing still plausible in terms of how an authority, such as a monarch, could work hand in hand in a religious society. More 's response to Tyndale and final words shows how much his own way of political discourse had shifted through the years of the reformation, as he had called for violence in the early years 1517, aggressively insulted protestant philosophers such as Luther, but had now consorted to reason. Therefore it can be concluded that many of the philosophers actions during the early years of the Reformation were shock reactions to this shift in power and apparent attack on the perceived 'Catholic state ' rather than a true change in political discourse, as many of the underlying religious opinions in political writing has been retained.

After this was when things started to get harder for Charles V. He was faced with Religious differences as a challenge to political authority. Charles V.

Henry’s Speech Was a Call to Action. What Did He Want His Fellow Virginians To Do? What Were His Justifications For The Proposed Action? How Did Henry Address The Concerns Of Those Who Did Not Agree With Him?

More is a man of principles and he will not compromise these principles. According to Sir Thomas if a man is prepared to take an oath then he must stand by that oath. However, in this case the signing of the oath would compromise these principles and therefore he can not sign. He displays this view when he says, " When a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water..." (Bolt, p 140) More goes on to explain that he can not doubt his soul. If he were to go against his moral conscience, in a sense he would be killing his soul, and without the soul there is nothing.

The author Lotherington describes how government was “dominated by…competing groups” but that overall the “source of all power was the king.” Lotherington argues that as Wolsey lacked the “intimate daily contact” enjoyed by others within the court this meant Wolsey was not all powerful. Also, the king also looked to his Privy Council and Gentlemen’s bedchamber for advice on issues, as well as Wolsey, which shows that Henry shared the power throughout the court. Saying this however, Wolsey had had more power than others (as seen in the Elthem Ordinances) where Wolsey halved the members of Henry’s gentlemen of the Bedchambers from twelve to six, and moved key advisors overseas. This suggests that although the power was shared, Wolsey could still decide who the king received advice from, which indirectly could be interpreted as Wolsey in total control. Also, although source 5 describes the power of the factions Lotherington also states how Wolsey “controlled the distribution of patronage” which was essential to gain power and status. This gives the impression that Wolsey had overall control of government, and could either air or hinder the careers of the “ambitious men.” Saying this however, once the amicable grant failed in 1525 Henry lost faith in Wolsey. This allowed the competing factions, many of whom opposed Wolsey due to his power, to undermine his authority which eventually led to his disapproval and eventually arrest for treason. This

From the beginning of Henry VIII reign to 1529, Cardinal Wolsey was a influential figure and Henry's key advisor. However by 1529 Wolsey had been charged with praemunire and was due to be executed in November 1530. The most important reason for this was because of Wolsey's failure to obtain a divorce between Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII.

“Give me liberty, or give me death!” Patrick Henry’s words ring out like a bell, covering the crowd of respected politicians and lawyers with stunned silence. Henry’s brave, powerful speeches encouraged the colonies to stand as one to rebel against the British. Today, Patrick Henry is considered one of history’s most influential speaker and played a crucial role, before, during, and after the American Revolution.

Rulers of European countries during the 17th century had almost unlimited autonomy over their respective countries. They were the head of government in all respects, and all decisions were eventually made by them. However, along with this autonomy came responsibility in the form of the people. If the decisions of these rulers did not improve the country, the possibility existed that their power would be either curbed or taken away by the people. As ruler of England in the early 17th century, Charles Stuart believed strongly in absolute power and a king’s divine right to rule. He believed that a king was given his power by God and therefore had no reason to answer to the people. The Parliament in England at the time

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

He believes that if he is summoned to the Court that the jury will look at the evidence and realize there is no probable content to convict him of, therefore, proving him to be an innocent man who has done no wrong. More distinctly states this belief when he tells Cromwell, “The law requires more than an assumption; the law requires a fact.” -Sir Thomas More, pg 131

In the early 1500s, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, grew in the favor of Henry VIII. When Henry VIII was attempting to divorce Catherine of Aragon, Thomas Cranmer helped Henry VIII build his case for the annulment of the marriage. Thomas Cranmer also supported the law of Royal Supremacy, which made the king the head of the Church. These things led to Thomas Cranmer getting in Henry VIII “good books” which later helped him once Edward VI acceded the throne. Thomas Cranmer’s willingness to compromise helped him reach such a powerful position in the church so quickly. If Cranmer had gone about things the way Luther did, he would have easily been executed for heresy and defying the Law of Treason and Heresy by revolting against the king. By compromising some

He feels that if More publicizes the divorce it would proceed without a great amount of public revolt as he is such a man of his principles and religion. He hopes that the people would see that if More is promoting the divorce than it must be acceptable. At one point in the play, King Henry tells More, “not to pursue me on this matter”(54), but after More accepted the position of Chancellor, King Henry began badgering him to help with the affair. Henry’s behaviour became more violent and intense towards More as he continually declines to comment on the divorce. Despite the fact that King Henry promised again to More, “There, you have my word – I’ll leave you out of it” (56), he hired Cromwell to try to convince him to make a statement. King Henry wanted More’s approval so badly that he comes up with two possible scenarios. He “Wants either Sir Thomas More to bless his marriage or Sir Thomas More destroyed” (119).

More describes the monarch’s responsibilities in general terms from which more specific duties can be inferred. He says that the king has been charged with making the lives of his people more comfortable, protecting them from injustice, insuring that they are fed, and preventing crime through sound administration. Since these duties are presented in contrast with the king who keeps his people poor by confiscating their property, it is reasonable to infer that More expects his king to protect their private property. To protect his people from injustice, the king must provide for a system of laws and adjudication to resolve conflicts. In addition, in providing the example of the good king of Happiland who " . . . would ensure that there was always enough money in circulation for ordinary purposes of exchange . . .." More suggests that the monarch should be responsible for promoting commerce.