One of the reasons Cromwell made reforms to England in the 1530s was that there was still opposition to Henry being Supreme Head of the Church. It was important to have everyone on the king’s side, because without that his ideas would be ignored. Contradicting views would be discussed and spread widely between friends and acquaintances who would spread the information even more. The largest problem was when public figures expressed their opinions. For example, Elizabeth Barton was a nun who was widely respected and believed to have apparitions of G-d. She stated how G-d disapproved of Henry’s actions and that he would die a villain’s death. Cromwell methodically acted on this and other rebels. The Act of Supremacy meant that it was publicly
“There for three days, before the castle gate, he laid aside all his royal gear; barefoot and wearing coarse wool, he stood pitifully, and did not stop begging for our apostolic help and compassion, until he had moved everyone there, or who heard tell of his, to great reverence and pity.”- Pope Gregory VII (Swainson, Bill). This was a time that a king begged for forgiveness so he could come back to the Roman Catholic Church. In the Holy Roman Empire, King Henry IV had a certain power called lay investiture. Lay investiture is a practice that nobles or prestigious people, such as kings, did; giving bishops and abbots the power over church offices (Richard Abels). Kings would sell these spiritual offices for money and those that buy the space regain the money used to buy the position from the peasants working in the Church. Kings believed that lay investiture was a divine right and that it was allowed since he had been blessed by God. Nevertheless, popes believed that kings did not have the right to do this. These two conflicting ideas caused the Lay Investiture Controversy.
Louis XIV was the best example of an absolute monarch. Louis XIV ruled in France from 1643 until 1715. During his reign, he ensured that he was in absolute power, and control the whole time. Louis XIV thought that the world should revolve around him. Louis XIV did not do anything for the good of France, he would only do things that benefited him, and he treated the people of France very poorly.
In the 1500s and the 1600s the feudal system was beginning to fall. Different countries were trying new different types of governments instead of the dysfunctional feudal system. The feudal system consisted of many different nobles ruling over their own land. It was not a uniform system of ruling over the country. There were small city-states run by a singular ruler. Most of the population were poor farmers, that had no idea what was happening within the country. Obviously this system was not the best. Eventually countries found a more efficient way of running their countries. A single ruler began to consolidate the power from the city-states and make a more uniform government for the country. The ways these absolute monarchs consolidated and increased their powers were similar in the 1600s and 1700s, by decreasing the nobles’ powers, increasing military, and increasing bureaucracy.
An absolute monarch can be defined as a ruler who rules without any interference from the nobles, having complete, utter and unrestricted rule over his people. Louis XIV of France was a key model of an absolute monarch during the time seen as a man to whom there was no equal intellectually, militarily or physically. His absolute monarchy was one of the most successful during the Age of Absolution, having the longest rule of any monarch in Europe. The king's rule was extremely successful due to his control over both the nobility and his own people, the massive and powerful army that he embarked on creating for his nation as well as the revenue he attained through his taxation of his people and use of mercantilism. France has not since or prior
European monarchies came to dominate early modern Europe in the 15th through 18th century. Monarchies ruled many different nations: Spain, France, England, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Although the abstract governmental structures were similar, each nation had unique elements that separated their monarchy from the rest. Thus, the European monarchies differed from each other in three distinct facets: political, geographical, and economic traits. First, the political traits of each monarchy helped to define the country being ruled. In France, the Peace of Etaples marked the beginning of the early modern period. Louis XIV, one of France’s most significant monarchs, was able to greatly increase the influence of the crown over all of France establishing
“When the people fear their government there is tyranny:When the government fears the people there is liberty”. This quote by Thomas Jefferson best describes the vision our Founding Fathers had for our country. This way of thinking led them to write the Declaration of Independence in protest of King George III tyrannical government. Our Forefathers borrowed from the teaching of an ancient Greek philosopher named Plato and his student Aristotle. They believed that a tyrannical form of government was the least likely to prevail because one person that has all of the power is more susceptible to making mistakes and abusing power. As King George did. He ruled a cruel oppressive government that enraged the people and led to the revolutionary
The steps in which Oliver Cromwell rose to power are quite different and unique. Upon arrival of the English Civil War, Cromwell was an inexperienced and unproven soldier. Cromwell quickly gained military abilities and became a powerful military commander who led more than ten-thousand troops, all in just eight years . From military to politics, Cromwell was named Lord Protector in 1653 until his death in 1658 . As the head of England, Cromwell changed the constitution and the structure of the government. By his death, Cromwell was an experienced soldier and politician and many of his accomplishments fall under these two categories. Oliver Cromwell’s main heroic actions which structured and shaped England were the battle of Marston Moor, the
In the Middle Ages, they had a strange way of calling their time period a perfect world. They lived in a time where Christianity was spreading the globe, art and music started to expand and Europe was becoming the strongest nation. Everything seemed to be right except for how people were living life. It was unfair the way everyone was separated into a class and all you did wrong was just be born into the wrong family. In the Middle Ages, there was an indefinite structure in society. You were born into a class of people and generally stayed in that class for your entire life. No matter how hard you worked you would stay in that life forever, they were ranked from, Royalty, hereditary Nobility, Non-Hereditary.
At first, Henry VII cared nothing for Columbus and his ideas. But then, Columbus returned from one of his voyages with gold pieces and some natives. Upon seeing these treasures, Henry realized that if he seized this territory, all those riches could be his. And being the king of a huge nation, this was something he was interested in. the idea of wealth and power was too much for a man like Henry VII to resist, and that made him give in to the ideas of
Throughout his reign, Henry VII attempted and was partially successful in strengthening royal finances. He aimed to have a stronger financial base that would give him power and strength if there was a rebellion, and also to create a stable treasury for his dynasty. Henry was a rapacious and miserly character who went to many lengths in order to increase the annual income of the royals, so that they could be comparable to that of France and Spain who at the time were making a significant amount more than England. When Henry came to the throne he realised the limitations of the Exchequer to administrate crown finances and began to restore the use of the Chamber system. He was able to strengthen royal finances by implementing methods of Ordinary
Henry reformed, reshaped and fundamentally altered the law of the land creating a framework for English common law. Under Stephen thieves were left unpunished and many had escaped justice, church men did as they pleased without any implications, there was anarchy in terms of justice in Stephens reign. Henry created an impressive justice system which laid the precedent for the future. There was the Kings and County courts which dealt with land disputes and serious crimes and then there was the Hundred and Vill courts which dealt with small and less serious crime. Furthermore Henry created the Honourial court which was for barons and the Manorial courts which was for knights. They both dealt with land disputes between tenants and heard mostly petty crimes. Finally there was the Ecclesiastical court which dealt with crimes committed by the clergy, land disputes concerning the church and moral crimes. This effective structure ensured royal authority was restored. The question of proof combined with testifying under oath, introduction of juries and the Mort d’ ancestor changed the way how people were found guilt and convicted. For Henry the justice system was the most important and efficient way in asserting royal authority. However some parts of the system had been in place long before Henry II, the ordeal by iron, water and battle had been around since Henry I and William I, it was only that Stephen did not enforce the law but the creation of laws was already in place. Henry systematised the law, he did create some new procedures in an attempt to streamline and make the previous laws more effective. He also restored royal control over certain capital crimes to ensure the crown was involved in the most serious crimes. All the reforms of law and order led many to experience royal authority in some form
One of the problems Henry II faced was the barons. Under Stephen the baron had become too powerful and Henry had the issue of regaining this power. Many baron had taken advantage over Stephens lack of control and authority, several barons built castles without asking the kings permission and had taken over large areas of land Henry had to reassert his authority as the barons where becoming too powerful. If the barons carried on as they were Henrys fate would have ultimately reflected that of Stephens. Also the barons would have been seen as undreaming the king’s power and authority. Henry took control of the situation by demolishing the illegal castles built in Stephens’s reign the barons saw this as an attack on baronial power but the king was asserting his authority and keeping the barons on a tight leash to prevent them from becoming too powerful.
Henry Viii was never meant to be king, succession was at first marked for his older brother Arthur. So instead Henry was being primed by his father to enter the church and quite astonishingly (due to his later reputation) grew up to be an earnestly religious man. While Henry studied his brother married the Spanish princess Catherine of
Nationalism was closely tied to liberalism in that exponentials of both ideologies demanded far reaching political change that threatened the state system of Central Europe. Nationalism is the belief that one’s greatest loyalty should not be to a king or empire but to a nation of people who share a common culture language and history .Nationalism touched nearly every country in Europe in the first half of the 19thCentuary but it was not until after 1848 that it really began to