How Far Was Henry Vii’s Control over the Nobility in the Years 1485 to 1509 Due to His Financial Policies?

Source 4, an extract from Scarisbrick ‘Henry VIII,’ gives the impression that Henry gave all power to Wolsey, whilst he “hunted and jousted.” Cavendish then states how the king had “surrendered the cares of the state into the Cardinal’s hands.” This gives the impression that Wolsey had the powers of the king and was in charge of running the country efficiently. This is supported by source 6, where Henry asks Wolsey to watch some of the key nobility as well as “any others of whom you are superior.” This is clearly Henry giving Wolsey freedom to act as he wishes, thus

Louis would make the nobles do many embarrassing things, such as dress him, and even take out his chamber pot after going to the bathroom. Nobles would also be honored to see the king wake up in the morning, and watch him eat, things that had never been seen done by nobles for any other leader in history. By making the nobles do things like this, it made them feel less highly about themselves, less powerful, and less likely to try to overthrow him.

The powerlessness of Henry VI is a central factor of the outbreak of the war. He was known to be too soft and malleable to the wishes of his surrounding that had influence and control of him. Henry was considered to be a person who was very uninterested in the politics of the country. He also felt the lack of cleverness and strong features of character that were fundamental

‘Ending support for rival claimants to the throne was the greatest success of Henry VII’ foreign policy’ assess the validity of this view. Undoubtedly, dealing with claimants was the greatest success of Henry VII’s foreign policies because it allowed him to remove the threats of a return of the Yorkists, as well as other contenders with much more royal blood. Although there are other factors that are worth considering, such as international recognition and increasing prosperity, none had the effect that diminishing support for rival claimants did, as many of them could have potentially de-stabilised the nation. On many occasions, Henry had a lot of success in defeating claimants, or pretenders to the throne, which aided in his consolidation

With the death of Richard III and the victory of Henry VII began a new ear for England. He began by being crowned, then set about restricting the ability of Parliament, then married Elizabeth of York. The crown had little money because a traitor possessed a large amount of land, it gained a sizable income by seizing it. Henry then set about restricting the land owners by title, securing a set system so land owners may feel more secure.

As an absolutist ruler, Louis naturally wanted no checks to his power and the nobles could pose a serious risk to this policy. To weaken the nobles, Louis confined them to the Palace of Versailles and gave them no say in major political decisions. English nobles were given much more power than French nobles under the English constitutional monarchy. They had positions in the Parliament and they had a say in what was happening in England. There was no absolutist ruler in England to attempt to limit their power. French nobles couldn’t vote on legislation while English nobles could in

Henry VII ascended to the throne in 1485 with a weak claim due to dynastic issues following on from his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort. Despite discontent and rebellion within Henry VII’s reign, it is debatable whether the monarch was actually threatened by rebellions due to the simple reason that Henry VII was able to remain on the throne and secure a succession until his death, however the challenge to his authority and succession seen in Lovell, Simnel and Warbeck shows clear instability throughout areas of his reign. However the Yorkshire and Cornish rebellions, which aims were focused around issues of tax, did not pose as much of a threat during

As Tony Imperato points out, 'Medieval feudalism placed the monarch in the position of owner of all the lands in the realm, which he distributed to his nobles in return for their loyalty and service. As their overlord, the King could demand a payment whenever changes took place in landholding arrangements.' This paved the way for the exploitation of his nobles in order to gain revenue. There were many means in which he did this. One was the system of 'wardship', and 'relief'.

During the initial years of Henry II’s reign as king of England, he attempted to restore the authority that had lapsed during the reign of King Stephen from 1141 to 1154. In order to do this, Henry II worked to limit the power of the nobles, for example, by destroying adulterine castles. In addition, he standardised the legal system, which meant that the nobility was reliant on him for justice and also became more involved with financial matters, which helped to reinforce his control. However, he also had some shortcomings, which affected his success such as the facts that he spent such vast quantities of time on the continent and that he failed to prevent uprisings.

However, Source 5 written in 1994 by John Lotherington, appears to disagree with that of the view of source 4. In parts it appears to actually agree with source 4, ‘Wolsey held a dominant position in government and controlled the distribution of patronage’ but then the source continues to say, ‘And of course the ultimate source of all power was the King’. This quote can be proven true with examples of Henry preventing Wolsey from doing something, such as in 1523 when Wolsey launched a sea attack upon the French without the kings permission, this led to Wolsey having to apologize for his actions. This shows that Henry still had control over Wolsey and that he couldn’t get away with something so easily. Also even though source 4 claims that Wolsey had very strong control, that even with this power he couldn’t prevent such things like The Amicable Grant of 1525 from being a disaster, and without aids from The Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk it could have been an even more disastrous, this proves Henry was more in control than Wolsey because the Dukes only subdued the rebellions on Henry’s behalf, not Wolsey’s. This is showing how Henry had not wholly surrendered his government power, and could still contest Wolsey’s decisions and problems. The source was also written in 1994, therefore the historians view is likely to be more factual rather than written in the period and being more biased, as can be the case, especially if that figure in

Henry had no intention of giving the nobles back power so another strength he had was that he was an all-powerful figure. Prof. Ronald Hutton says "he managed the nobility by honouring and flattering them". Henry went through Parliament to get reforms when he wanted them. By doing this he increased power of democracy as well as for himself. The early years of Henry's reign saw great rivalry amongst the noblemen to secure Henry's favour and to try to regain power, which Henry VII had taken away.

Henry IV Part 1 deals heavily with the question of Henry IV’s legitimacy. Henry was a usurper king who deposed

During the reign of Louis XIV, France's stability and success was threatened by the power of the nobility. When Louis looked back at the Fronde, a nobility revolt that occurred during his childhood, he realized the thirst for power the nobility held, and as a result limited their power. To begin with, Louis forced the nobles to move to Versailles where they could cause less trouble, and Louis could keep a close eye on them. Louis achieved this by threatening to deny them their pensions if they didn't move. Louis also instituted heavy taxing for the nobles, in the form of a 10% income tax as well as a head tax. These measures prevented a Noble uprising during Louis' reign as king, and allowed France to develop positively as a country.

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.

With task forces in place to fact-check appropriate White-Collar Crime convictions, going forward; judges will continue to have assistance from various watch dog groups to prevent overcriminalization (NACDL, p1). Overcriminalization is simply an over thinking of crimes whereas maybe a fine should close the case, there may be jail time instead (NACDL, p1). Overcriminalization causes violation of local laws to be treated as federal crimes. This process must be changed as reviewed by Congress or (at the least) reviewed on a case by case basis by the judges that see these types of cases (NACDL, p1).