The Restoration of Strong Government Under Henry VII Essay

The Challenges to Henry VII Security Between 1487 and the end of 1499 Henry VII faced many challenges to his throne from 1487 to the end of 1499. These included many rebellions and pretenders to his throne. To what extent was the success he dealt with them differs although the overriding answer is that by the end of his reign he had secured his throne and set up a dynasty, with all challengers removed. Lambert Simnel challenged Henry’s security when Richard Symonds passed him off as Warwick. Simnel was taken to Ireland, which had become the centre of Yorkist plotting.

The War of the Roses was a crucial and significant period in the England’s history playing an important role in it. There were many factors which can be seen as the causes of the war. However, it is vital to clarify to what extent its outbreak was caused by Henry’s inadequacies.

One can see an example while looking back on Henry’s youthful experiences. Before taking oath as king, Henry was involved with some scrupulous characters. He would

They had to rely on the nobles in the areas to act in the interest of

During this period in French history, the nobility was starting to gain power and prestige, and this power presented the king with a problem: he needed to have strong nobles to strengthen his realm by extension. However, he still had to maintain power and his position of supremacy. Richelieu posits that the king must maintain a firm system of punishments and rewards:”Punishments and rewards are two quite necessary elements in the conduct of states. It is an ordinary allegation, but more true, and often repeated by all men, that rewards and punishments are the two most important tools of government available in a realm.” This system played on the honor obsession the nobility had, and strengthened the kingship at the same time. If one helped the king, they were rewarded with more honor and a higher position; if they resisted, they lost everything. This strengthened the kingship as well. Those he rewarded would be assets to the kingdom, while those he punished would serve as warnings to those who considered resisting.

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

As Henry was a usurper, it was unlikely that he'd gained much support and loyalty from his Nobles although it did not evade the fact that he had to establish some authority over them. One of the primary methods Henry used was to either punish or reward his Nobility with his financial policies.

Although, people feuded about which noble was the right noble some didn’t even believe it should exist.

In northern Europe after the Middle Ages, monarchies began to build the foundations of their countries that are still in affect today. During the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries these “New Monarchs” made many relevant changes in their nations. During the middle of the fifteenth century Europe was affected by war and rebellion, which weakened central governments. As the monarchies attempted to develop into centralized governments once again, feudalism’s influence was lessened. This “new” idea of centralization was reflected in the monarch’s actions. Rulers tried to implement peace and restore the idea that the monarchy represented law and order in the nation. These New Monarchs were able to build armies due to taxation, and

Since it was made up of nobles, they tried to protect each others' interests, something not always for the public good.

decline of the power of the nobles, which had a severe impact on the loyalty of

This line of examination, however, raises the question of how one actually defines noble merit or what merits one to be considered part of the nobility. Loyseau visits history in order to gain context on the situation. He notes that at the formation of the Kingdom, two distinct groups were present who translate to the nobility and commoner distinction. These were the Franks and Gauls according to Loyseau and the

Henry the Fifth has been noted as England’s best King throughout history. He was loved among the common people and nobles alike for his fairness, his effectiveness on the throne, his justness, and his ability to relate to people of all classes. The kings that reigned before him, especially his father King Henry IV and King John, provide a striking contrast to Hal’s attitude on the throne. Kings of the past had not experienced the life of the common people, and chose to lead their lives in the realm of the castle. As we witnessed in I Henry IV, Hal’s father even went as far to discuss this approach to ruling at length with Hal. Henry IV believed that a king was best admired and supplicated if he was kept

Feudalism is, thus characterized by political decentralization. The monarchs, having delegated such a substantial amount of authority to the nobles, were left essentially without any real power. The social order, which regulated virtually all of society, dictated the need for a king to maintain public peace. Thus, the monarchs remained in power, but only figuratively (Pirenne, pp. 147-150).

Many Historians have come to the decisive conclusion that the French Revolution, an event that characterises Modern European History, has changed Europe. It was a time period that took place prior to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, between 1789 and the late 1970s. it denotes a time period in which the French civilians were aroused unanimously in overturning the traditionalistic “institutions” such as the monarchy and the feudal system. Though the causes of such an event remain inexplicit, intriguing arguments can be drawn in considering an array of reasons that initially sparked it. One plausible assumption has been that it was merely the result of the assumed divine power that King Louis XVI had that ignited the civilians’ revolt. This is particularly acceptable, seeing that this event was draped in the uprooting ideals of Enlightenment. From this pivotal event in Modern History, Historians have gained an insightful scope of not only the evolution of peasantry and lower-societal revolts against an usurping power (i.e nobility) and in some occasions their demise, but have also gained insights into the unnoticed power of the working class. Ultimately the major havoc-inducing factor that led to the crisis of the Ancien Regime can be a derived from a state of hierarchal power. The division of class and the prestigious stance of the nobility helped rouse the