Using Your Understanding of the Historical Context, Assess How Convincing the Arguments in These Three Extracts Are in Relation to Henry's Relationship with the Nobility.

War now hangs over all of us like a hungry shadow waiting to consume us. The choice whether we fight or submiss is congruent with the question of imprisonment or democracy. A man is not free if he does not have freedom from fear, freedom from interference in his own government. It is our moral duty in this time of need to accomplish God’s work. So will you not you not rise with me now and protect our homeland, just like Henry would agree. Henry himself speaks of this, he tells us, “...If we make proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power”(Henry 266). Henry words need no further corroboration, he states that it would be ungodly to not protect our sacred values and religion, to protect ourselves from their papist ways. He states that god himself has given us a chance to make our independence official within the eyes of the

when he came to the throne. He had advisers to help him with the day

As a king, Henry becomes known for being a man of resilience, strategy, and combat. These traits, according to Machiavelli, are necessary to become the “ideal king.” As stated by Machiavelli, “…a prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules.” (Machiavelli) This can be seen when the Dauphin presents Henry with a gift of tennis balls and an insulting speech practically telling him to stay out of grown men’s affairs. This gives Henry the leverage he needs to start a war with France without looking like the instigator. He can now put the blame of war on the Dauphin and the many lives of whom will be killed. Henry uses this to move toward his strength and show his full potential.

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.

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.

What is Henry implying when he says that he is loyal to "the majesty of heaven...above all earthly kings"? What tone (manner in which an author expresses his attitude) does this statement hold?

King Henry IV must also contend with his son, Prince Hal, who’s not the honorable prince he had hoped him to be. He feels it is “an honorable spoil” not to have “a son who is the theme of honor’s tongue,” when he learns of Northumberland’s son Hotspur’s victories, which, should be “a conquest for a prince to boast of” (1.1.74,80, & 76). Pangs of jealousy strike Henry’s heart caused by the differences between his son and Northumberland’s. So much so, he wishes “it could be proved that” someone, or something, “had exchanged in cradle clothes, their sons at birth” (1.1.85-87).

Overall, it is evident that Henry's financial policy enabled him to gain some control over his Nobility although it was in fact his attitude towards War and conflict that meant he could have complete control over his Noblemen. Magnates would have a lot of support if they were to rise up against the King during a War and that would put Henry's throne in grave danger although his decision not to engage in foreign affairs meant that it didn't give his Nobility a chance to try and overthrow him. Christine Carpenter highlights this as she says Henry's financial treatment of his Gentry meant that they were very close to uprising as it caused so much frustration and tension. This shows that the King never really had complete control over them due to his financial

Patrick Henry uses diction and appeal to the authority to conjure up the people to believe in themselves to demonstrate ethos. Henry uses different vocabulary to make his speech more serious and important. Patrick Henry points out, “we have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope”(Henry 2). Everything that they are doing is making a difference, but it takes time. The word choice of “petitioned”, “interposition”, “supplicated” and “discarded” will convince the people that Henry knows what to say, to his advantage, with his skills he worked with makes him a reliable

He thinks that this system would never really be followed. The senate, he says, is not structured well enough to protect the rights of the people. One of his main points is the leaning towards a monarchy. He describes that it would be very easy for the President to become a king. Henry seems to also contradict himself on this point when he says that he would rather have a king and lords than a chief who controls the army. Henry's final point is about the creation of an absolute ruler. Like he says about the monarchy, it would be easy for this to happen. If the President has control of the army, it would be easy to declare himself an absolute leader.

From his fifteen year minority to the inept rule of the rest of his reign, Henry VI was a "child", at least as far as governing ability was concerned. The period of his minority and the time that he was the titular king laid the groundwork for the Wars of the Roses. Had Henry been an intelligent king, with at least some political acumen, and the ability to win the respect of his nobles, their may have never been any Wars of the Roses. But his weakness in allowing government by favorites and governing foolishly on his own, at the very least directed his country down the road to a bloody civil war.

Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme of the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play. Through characterization Shakespeare explores moral conflict, and passage three is a prime example of Falstaff’s enduring moral disorder. By this stage in the play Hal has

In the excerpt we are given, King Henry V rose to the occasion and spoke words of encouragement that rallied his troops. In his speech he says “I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost...such outward things dwell not in my desires.” Henry tells his men that he does not

The nobility of the Kingdom of France has been evaluated by various scholars of history. There is something to be said, however, for those who chronicled their impressions while living them in the 17th and 18th centuries. The excerpts of Charles Loyseau’s A Treatise on Orders, written in 1610, and Isabelle de Charriere’s The Nobleman, written in 1763 provide two very different glimpses on the French nobility from differing time periods. From these two accounts, it is clear that there was a marked shift in the way some viewed the nobility and their role in the operation of the French state. While Loyseau praises the nobility nearly wholeheartedly,

Henry V is a wise and loyal king, changing from a wild youth to a mature king. He is described to be an intelligent, thoughtful and an efficient statesman. He thinks carefully whether to invade France or not which represents his responsible character. King Henry gives a very strong speech which gave courage and confidence to his army that they could win the battle. This character describes him to be a king of great ability to fight and having good administrative skills. Throughout the play Henry’s nature is religious, merciful and compassionate.