ipl-logo

To What Extent Was Henry Vii Successfully Established Royal Authority By 1487

891 Words4 Pages

‘Henry VII successfully established his royal authority by 1487’ I think that royal authority means that the king would have had an heir to carry on his line and his opposition has been dealt with to a suitable extent. By 1487, Henry had spent two years on the throne after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, and within those years, I believe that Henry VII had successfully established his royal authority by 1487. However, there are arguments that suggest Henry did not successfully establish his royal authority by 1487. An argument that suggests he had established his royal authority was the marriage of convenience between him and Elizabeth of York. The Yorkists were the main opposition to the throne and many of the Yorkists’ …show more content…

The first rebellion being the Lovell-Stafford’s Uprising during the Easter of 1486. He dealt with rebels that he managed to capture, by having Humphrey Stafford executed but his younger brother and accomplice was pardoned. I believe that this was a good thing to do because it showed his opponents that he was willing to deal with traitors swiftly but he was not ruthless and was able to come up with other punishments. The second rebellion was the Lambert Simnel Rising. The first part of this rebellion involved the Earl of Lincoln having Lambert Simnel pretend to be the Earl of Warwick. However, when this was put to a stop by Henry, the Earl of Lincoln joined Lord Lovell and got international help to try and create an uprising in the North, which resulted in the Battle of Stoke. He dealt with the nobles who tried to overthrow him accordingly, with the Earl of Lincoln being killed in the Battle of Stoke but Lord Lovell was never caught. This partially established royal authority, as I interpret it as dealing with opponents to suitable extent. If it meant that he had to kill some of his opponents that tried to challenge him, which sent a message to other opponents, then that means he established his royal …show more content…

The rebellions happened because there were people that did not like Henry and believed that someone else or maybe themselves could do a better job running the country. The rebellions were started by his opposition, who were members of the Yorkist family or who were Yorkist supporters. As he was the only Lancaster left, he could have been usurped very easily by the Yorkists, which implies that he had not suitably dealt with his opponents. At 1487, Henry VII would not have known what we do now, he would have not known for sure that there would not be another rebellion, which also furthers the idea that he had not dealt with his opponents to a suitable

Show More
Related
662 Words | 3 Pages

Paine points out the facts as to why the colonists should fight, and points out, “... but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property… am I to suffer it?” (Paine 126). Here he talks about if a regular thief were to break into his house, he would try and make the thief get punished for his crimes. If the king were to do these same crimes, why should he not be punished as well? Henry is more frantic in his writing, trying to grab the audience’s attention with many reasons that would spark anger and want them to fight.

Read More
703 Words | 3 Pages

Subsequently, London also created the Dominion of New England, which most importantly pushed the English Navigation Laws; this ruling forbade colonists to trade with countries other than England, in turn leading to increased smuggling and anger. Sir Edmund Andros headed the dominion and was ruthless; he restricted the press, schools, courts while taking all land titles. In addition to all of his constraints, he also taxes colonists without consent and tried to abolish smuggling. Furthermore, the events in England again affected their colonial rule as the Glorious Rebellion in 1688-1689, which dethroned James II and put into power William III, led to uprisings. Inspired by this rebellion, colonists rose against the Dominion of New England and killed Sir Edmund Andros, which destroyed the whole dominion.

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

The French, Haitian, and American Revolutions were all sparked from the minds of the colonists, slaves, or lower classes who were treated with inequality by their own governments. In each location, there was a noticeable trend of mistreatment between government and people. In Haiti, slaves brought over by the French who captured the island, and forced them into brutal labor in what was the most valuable and wealthy are at the time. The government and leadership in France was corrupt as they were in much debt. King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette lived in Versailles far from the other forms of government, abusing the country wealth.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

Parliament knew they could not rule without a king, so they decided to replace Charles. During the English Civil War, justice is best understood as doing what is right to protect the majority. King Charles had a different idea, he wanted to rule the majority to his advantage. Putting King Charles was both just and

Read More
1545 Words | 7 Pages

‘The consolidation of royal authority, in the years 1487-1509, was due to Henry VII’s control over the nobility.’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this view. It can be argued to a certain extent that the consolidation of royal authority for Henry VII, in the years 1487-1509, was a result of control over the nobility. The challenge lied in the ability to decrease their power without alienating them whilst removing their position of threat. However, there were other contributory factors in Henry’s consolidation of his royal authority, such as his diplomatic skills in dealing with foreign powers and the indispensable use of royal finances.

Read More
162 Words | 1 Pages

But the colonists were still justified to rebel against Britain . The colonies were getting larger and had experience to become their own country. So they deserved to have more control over their own government than what was given to them. Under the British control they had no independence or freedom.

Read More
459 Words | 2 Pages

Many factors contributed to the eventual rebellion of Americans against British rule in 1776, the Intolerable Acts being one of them. The most important cause for rebellion was the restriction of civil liberties on the colonists. In addition the British government enforced acts such as the Writs of Assistance and the Quartering Act. Both of these were highly criticized and colonists challenged the constitutionality of these acts. The fact that colonists believed their civil rights were being violated, their arguments not being heard, and that their efforts to have their own privacy honored were ignored all lead to a rebellion.

Read More
247 Words | 1 Pages

The rebellion had a lot of violence involved it was not a peaceful protest. Most people viewed it as a way to get there freedoms. The rebellion was proof the American government had great authority over its people but it would be met with resistance. It also added a glimpse of what would happen if many new taxes were raised like

Read More
789 Words | 4 Pages

The two very powerful absolute rulers, King Louis XIV of France and Tsar Peter the Great of Russia controlled their kingdoms with complete power. They are the ultimate definition of powerful absolute monarchs. However, only one of them stood out on top for controlling their kingdom with the most absolute rule as possible. King Louis XIV demonstrated the largest amount of absolute power through the way he controlled his nobility and his oppressive policies towards his people.

Read More
777 Words | 4 Pages

Rebellion is the voice of the unsatisfied, the oppressed, and the messengers of change. The people of the United States want to separate from the British monarchy that controls them. In the Declaration of independence, Thomas Jefferson encourages the rebellion against King George and the pursuit of what the colonists have been denied for so many years. Jefferson believes that a rebellion is justifiable when an oppressive figure inhibits one from exercising one’s natural rights. Jefferson uses suffering-related diction and logical appeal to justify the defiance of restrictive government.

Read More
1459 Words | 6 Pages

understood from a different perspective, one that was not previously viewed. The individuals were each given an opportunity to tell their unique story, in their own words. Hirschman (1992) set a goal to explore the phenomenological accounts of individuals who have sought help through Narcotics Anonymous (N.A) as a means to recovery; and additionally interpreted the dynamics of group discussion. Her paper is based upon her experiences in N.A., as both a participant and as an observer. Hirschman provided a phenomenological description of how recovering substance users share their experiences with one another and to themselves within a support group.

Read More
503 Words | 3 Pages

Do you go against the grain? Is going against the grain necessarily as superior quality? Oscar Wilde explained that disobedience is a great human virtue and it inspires social progression in history. When individuals disagree from a group it shows rebellion which then always usually leads to change whether that is prosperous or detrimental. Disobedience has created diversity, break through, and rebellion to create social progression through history.

Read More
1112 Words | 5 Pages

Although the truth reality here is the roots of the rebellion of the 13 colonies start from the beginning of the establishment of colonies. According to the lecture 10, “in 1660 through the first series of Navigation Acts, the English parliament sets the rules for how the people in the 13 colonies would live their lives”. This was one of the reasons of the rebellion of the 13 colonies, because the colonies they want to have they own rules and live their lives according to the rules that favoring each colony no only England. The acts that created the parliament was only to benefit England, because specify how the colonies behave between them and the mother land. The colonies beginning to get tired of the England rules and they want a change.

Read More
1078 Words | 5 Pages

Was the French Revolution preventable? This is a question that is fascinating to think about. What could have been done differently to prevent this revolution that cost countless people their lives? Why were others willing to give their lives, for what cause? Why was life so turbulent?

Read More
987 Words | 4 Pages

Shanti Gurung History 101 Final Exam Professor Montague 12/06/2015 1. As some 16th and 17th c. leaders sought to strengthen their control over both the legislative and administrative machinery of their respective kingdoms, others witnessed the destruction of absolutism as their principle governing philosophy. What obstacles did English royalty face in their effort to establish an absolute monarchy in the early decades of the 17th century? (Hint: Remember the tactics monarchs employed to achieve absolutism.)

Read More

More about To What Extent Was Henry Vii Successfully Established Royal Authority By 1487

Related Topics

Open Document