How Far Do Sources 1 and 2 Suggest That the Young Henry Viii Saw the Nobility as His Friends and Supporters?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By nathane123
Words 705
Pages 3
By 1510, King Henry VIII had been in power for around a year, since the death of his father. Henry was very different to his father in many ways, one being the manner in which he regarded the nobility. While Henry VII kept his friends and supporters in check, with limited power in order to be assured of their loyalty, his son, Henry VIII, seemed to have a very different view on how to treat the nobility, giving them more power and control of their own estates. Sources 1 and 2 give varying views on whether or not Henry VIII regarded them as his friends and supporters.

Source 1 comes from a description of the festivities enjoyed by Henry and his ‘friends’ at Court in 1510. This source gives much evidence to suggest that Henry very much regarded the nobility as his friends. This can be seen through the description of the antics that Henry and co. took part in. They are said to have joked around a lot, seemingly having fun while playing a prank by coming “early to the Queen’s bedchamber one morning; dressed in short coats of Kentish cloth, with hoods, bows and arrows, like Robin Hood”. What this implies is that the King trusts his nobility enough that he allows them into the Queen’s chamber. They continued to enjoy themselves later at dinner, when Henry “arranged the seating and joked with all; and had [them] parade in strange costumes before they brought in actors to stage a play.” This could be seen as showing that Henry very much enjoyed the company of his nobility, counting them as his friends.

However when taking a closer look at Source 1 you can infer that maybe the King is not treating his nobility as his peers as it seems. Where it says “ Then later at dinner the King… had the Earl of Essex and the Lord Henry, Earl of Wiltshire, and Sir Edward Howard and Sir Thomas Parr parade in strange costumes before they bought in actors to stage a play.”. The young…...

Similar Documents

Did Henry Viii Wholly Surrender His Power to Wolsey

...It is hotly debated whether or not Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey. To analyse the extent of the truth of this statement we must consider the Sources; a history book from J.J Scarasbrick reviewing the relationship of the King and Wolsey another history book by John Lotherington also reviewing Wolsey and the King’s relationship and a letter written by Henry VIII himself which perfectly demonstrates their relationship. Source 4 agrees with the statement stating that the king ‘had wholly surrendered the cases of state to the Cardinal’s hand’ directly agreeing with the statement and showing that Henry gave all power to Wolsey so as ‘to cast off the cares’ this is supported by Source 6 where Henry dismissively tells Wolsey to ‘keep a careful watch on… others of whom you are suspicious’ this clearly illustrates that Henry VIII would offload matters of state into Wolsey’s hands and allow him to respond as he wished showing a clear passing of the reins of power. However when analysing these sources it is important to consider the nature origin and purpose of the source. Source 4 is quoting a servant of Wolsey George Cavendish who was not privy to Wolsey’s political power or action but was merely a personal companion and thus would wish to create a grand image for his employer and exaggerate his strength this significantly limits the reliability of the source. Yet Source 6 is directly from Henry VIII and thus flawlessly demonstrates the king’s......

Words: 827 - Pages: 4

How Far Do the Sources Suggest That There Was Considerable Resistance to the Amicable Grant of 1525?

...“How far do the sources suggest that there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant of 1525?” Sources 1, 2 and 3 strongly suggest there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant as they all at least show traits of opposition from the public towards the new-implemented taxes. Source 1 is a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Warham addressed to Cardinal Wolsey. The letter begins with ‘it will be hard’ demonstrating immediately that the archbishop has an adverse stance towards the Amicable Grant. As the letter continues, it begins to seem more like Warham is warning Wolsey about the Grant as opposed to supporting it; he quotes “Reports show the dissatisfaction prevailing” and “Some commissioners only announce the King’s command without pressing it further through fear of the people.” This infers that the commissioners are afraid to even introduce the new plan, let alone explain the conditions in detail due to the daunting reactions of the public; this in itself shows there was a substantial amount of resistance towards it, for the reason that there were already too many taxes implemented and the people didn’t have enough money to cover them all “It will be hard to raise the money…especially as other parliamentary grants are still to be paid.” This source could be seen as reliable as it was from the Archbishop of Canterbury who would, under any circumstances support the decisions made by the king, therefore would not have rose this issue to......

Words: 815 - Pages: 4

How Far Do the Sources Suggest That There Was Considerable Resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525?

...How far do the sources suggest that there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525? Explain your answer, using the evidence shown in Sources 1,2 and 3. I believe that sources 1 and 3 both do strongly support the statement that there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525. Whereas, source 2 both supports and does not support the statement. All of the sources do suggest that there was unrest towards the grant and that the duke was very worried about the consequences that may occur. Firstly, source one agrees with the statement that there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525 because firstly, in source one it suggests ‘show the dissatisfaction prevailing’ which shows us the dissatisfaction that some people felt because of grant, mainly due to the amount of money they had to pay. This source relates well to source three because in source three the first line says ‘The people plead their poverty’ which shows us that like in source one there is resistance too many other taxes to pay so creating this one has caused an unwanted outburst from the people because of the amount that they have to pay. Also source supports source one because it reads in source three ‘arose up in arms against the commissioner’ this shows us that there was considerable resistance against the Amicable Grant as stated also in source one with the quote ‘other parliamentary grants are still to be paid’. Source one was written by the Archbishop of Canterbury...

Words: 1030 - Pages: 5

How Far Do the Sources Suggest That There Was Considerable Resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525?

...How far do the sources suggest that there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525? Explain your answer, using the evidence shown in Sources 1,2 and 3. I believe that sources 1 and 3 both do strongly support the statement that there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525. Whereas, source 2 both supports and does not support the statement. All of the sources do suggest that there was unrest towards the grant and that the duke was very worried about the consequences that may occur. Firstly, source one agrees with the statement that there was considerable resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525 because firstly, in source one it suggests ‘show the dissatisfaction prevailing’ which shows us the dissatisfaction that some people felt because of grant, mainly due to the amount of money they had to pay. This source relates well to source three because in source three the first line says ‘The people plead their poverty’ which shows us that like in source one there is resistance too many other taxes to pay so creating this one has caused an unwanted outburst from the people because of the amount that they have to pay. Also source supports source one because it reads in source three ‘arose up in arms against the commissioner’ this shows us that there was considerable resistance against the Amicable Grant as stated also in source one with the quote ‘other parliamentary grants are still to be paid’. Source one was written by the Archbishop of Canterbury...

Words: 1030 - Pages: 5

How Far Do These Sources Suggest That British Rule Was Accepted in India at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century? Explain Your Answer, Using the Evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3.

...How far do these sources suggest that British rule was accepted in India at the beginning of the twentieth century? Explain your answer, using the evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3. Source 1 is a letter, written by the influence of Queen Victoria to the Prime Minister towards the end of the 19th century. To an extent, this source does not suggest that the Raj was accepted within the natives in India. One reason for this is that Queen Victoria is saying what the viceroy needs to do in order for the acceptance of the natives. This suggests that this is not the case already at the time when the letter was written – that the natives do not “like and love” the Raj. The British were seen as ‘alien-rulers’ by the Indians, which could therefore mean that this opinion and view may be hard to change. The Raj had a dominant, oppressive rule on the Indians. They had subservient roles, such as Ayahs, compared to the British who put themselves on top of the Caste system (of which they did not understand well) and were hierarchy towards them. One could argue, however, that Queen, is trying to make things better for the relationship between the natives of India and the British rulers in the source, and so it could show a good attitude – one that the Indians could respect and understand. Another reason for this is that from this source, there is no evidence to suggest that British rule was accepted towards the beginning of the twentieth century, because the letter was written in the......

Words: 1093 - Pages: 5

How Far Do These Sources Agree That Supplying the Troops Was a Significant Problem for Henry in the French War of 1513? Explain Using Sources 1, 2 and 3.

...How far do these sources agree that supplying the troops was a significant problem for Henry in the French War of 1513? Explain using sources 1, 2 and 3. These sources all agree to an extent that supplying the troops for the French War was a significant problem for Henry, whether it was because he couldn’t transport the large scale of his troops, support them with necessary victuals or he had been over ambitious about the whole campaign. All sources give sufficient evidence that Henry and Wolsey physically couldn’t provide for England’s Army, however each source support that supplying the troops was a significant problem to a degree, but some situations were worse than the other situations that Henry was facing, as well as rooting from separate issues with nothing to do with the troops. For example the transportation aspect was a major problem which source 2 and 3 explains. Source 2 and 3 agree on the potential problem of transporting ‘supplies, ordinance, artillery, victuals’. Source 2 voices this problem, ‘tonnage of fifty ships’ as it highlights that the large scale was the problem. Whereas source 3 highlights again another problem with supplying- how the actual transportation of the army and its supplies and getting it safely across the continent. However both show that supplying was a great problem. In source 3, for example it states ‘it is too great a shame to lose the ships that be lost.’- could not risk losing more men. Source 1 and 2 disagree on the problems......

Words: 703 - Pages: 3

How Far Do Sources 1 &2 Suggest That the Young Henry Viii Saw the Nobility as His Friends and Supporters?

...How far do sources 1&2 suggest that the young Henry VIII saw the nobility as his friends and supporters? Henry VIII saw the nobility as his entertainers and play things rather than his supporters or friends and did not show them any respect which differed massively from the way that his father, Henry VII, as his father respected his nobility and controlled them by limiting their power so that they stayed loyal to them. Source 1 describes how Henry interacted with the nobility whereas source 2 shows his anger towards him. Source one is “from a description of some of the festivities enjoyed by Henry and his friends at court in 1510.” It says in the title of the source “and his friends” indicating that Henry was friends with his nobles. Similarly in the source it goes on to describe the activities that Henry and his “friends” took part in for example “they all laughed and danced” and the King “joked with all” which is something that friends would do and this indicates that Henry enjoyed being around his nobility and not only had a work relationship with them but also a social one. Also in this source it says that the nobles came to “the Queens bed chamber one morning” which suggests that Henry trusted his nobles enough to go in an area that would usually be off limits and private showing that the nobles were some of Henry’s most trusted associates. In this source it also says that his nobles staged a play for him and dressed like Robin Hood. This could be seen as a sign of......

Words: 394 - Pages: 2

Henry Viii Foreign Policy

...How far do Source 1 and Source 2 suggest that the young Henry VIII saw the nobility as his friends and supporters? Sources 1 and 2 have very different ideas of whether Henry VIII saw the nobility as his friends and supporters, as initially both sources seem very contradictive of each other. Source 1 is very based around the idea of a Henry seeing a friendship between him and the nobility whereas Source 2 suggests that Henry and the nobility had a very conflicting relationship which was not friendly in any aspect. However there are further aspects in the Sources which both agree with one another in the portrayal that they Henry did see the nobility as his friends and supporters. Source 1 portrays that Henry did see the nobility as his friends and supporters rather extensively as in the source they are seen together attending the Queen’s chamber, which suggests that Henry entrusts the nobility with the privilege of entering the Queen’s chamber which would’ve been quite an honourable proposition. The way in which the king and the nobility are seen here working together differs to the suggestions in source 2 which illustrates that their relationship is very unequal. Source 2 says that “the King has commanded all the lords and most of the nobles..” this proclaims that the King was determined to obtain the majority of the control and that Henry saw no significant friendship between the nobility and the King. On the other hand, source 2 signifies that Henry relied on the nobility......

Words: 873 - Pages: 4

How Far Do Sources 1, 2 and 3 Suggest That in the Years 1945-59, the Conservative and Labour Parties Held Radically Different Views on the Nationalisation of British Industry? (20 Marks)

...How far do sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that in the years 1945-59, the Conservative and Labour parties held radically different views on the nationalisation of British industry? (20 marks) Between the years of 1945 and 1959, there was much speculation as to whether or not there was a consensus or conflict between the Labour and Conservative parties in regards to their views on Nationalisation. Sources 1 and 3 completely disagree with each other. On the one hand, the first source is Clement Attlee, the leader of the Labour party in 1945, saying that something has to be done and that nationalisation is the way. Contrastingly, source 3 is from the Conservative party manifesto. It chooses privation over nationalisation, and therefore presents both parties as holding radically different views on the British industry, each with their own ideas. However, source 2 offers a variegated approach, with Hugh Gaitskell, the leader of the Labour party in 1959, showing the parties as having less radically different views, as he talks about a mixed economy, private and national, being perhaps a wise move on behalf of the government. Sources 1 and 3 agree, overall, that both the Labour and Conservative parties held radically different views on the nationalisation of British industry. Source 1 was taken from a speech by Clement Attlee, the leader of the labour party at the time. In 1945, the country was in economic ruin and a social divide was severely evident. Clement Attlee, alongside the......

Words: 1136 - Pages: 5

How Far Do Sources 1 and 2 Challenge the View That the Boer War Was Responsible for Social Change in Britain?

...How far do sources 1 and 2 challenge the reasons for Britain’s involvement in the Boer war given in source 3? Source 3, written by Chamberlain is an extract of a speech in parliament justifying the involvement of the British Empire in the Boer war, October 1899. It suggests that the main reasons for the involvement of the British Empire in the Boer war was to protect British subjects – people like Bates, Milner and Rhodes who had invested in mines and were subject to harsh treatment – and to protect the Empire, giving his speech a more old imperialistic view. Also, the quote “in the last resort” suggests that the Boers have already had chances, but Britain gave them their last chance. Source 2 was an extract from Lloyd-George, a responding speech to Chamberlain’s. Source 2 suggests that the involvement of Britain in the Boer war was more to do with capitalism and profit instead of the defence of the Empire. “forces to defend our possessions”, this quote slightly agrees with source 3, as it shows we did have to defend ourselves in Boer territory. However, source 2 doesn’t agree with source 3 in other aspects, as Lloyd-George says that we are involved mainly for capitalism and profit, “the war has no connection with the civil rights of British subjects”. So source 2 does agree slightly with source 3 , on the basis that Britain did have to defend themselves, but Chamberlain wanted to defend the possessions (gold mines etc) to promote economic growth of the Empire. Also,......

Words: 617 - Pages: 3

Churchill Was Wrong and Misguided to Support Edward Viii in the Way That He Did. How Far Do These Sources Support This Interpretation?

...Churchill was wrong and misguided to support Edward VIII in the way that he did. How far do these sources support this interpretation? All three of these sources present a different image about Churchill’s approach Edwards’s situation. Overall Churchill’s view on the situation was the majority and most people were very angry with the King for trying to marry a divorcee. Sources B and C support the view that Church was misguided by telling us that he had little support from anyone else in the public or in the government. Source B states that people felt an “enraged fury against the King” this point tell us that people were furious with the king because he has gone against s major church rule to marry a divorcee. As Edward was the head of the Church of England his methods were thought to be a direct mockery of the church and everything that it stands for. As people didn’t have support for the king they were not going to have support for Churchill as he supported the king, this means they would have thought that his views were misguided and confused. Although sources imply that Churchill views were different to the majority and this would of lead to people thinking he was misguided there is no use of the word “Misguided” in the sources so we do not know exactly if the views of the people were this. Another thing that supports that the views that are supplied in Sources B and C are the both Source A and B are written in the correct time periods. This means that the facts......

Words: 607 - Pages: 3

How Far Do the Sources Suggest That Cardinal Campeggio Had No Intention of Allowing the Divorce to Take Place? Explain Your Answer Using the Evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3.

...Anastasia Womack How far do the sources suggest that Cardinal Campeggio had no intention of allowing the divorce to take place? Explain your answer using the evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3. Sources 2 and 3 are both from historians that suggest Cardinal Campeggio did everything in his power to deny and delay the divorce proceedings; Source 1 confirms this suspicion from the man himself. Vergil comments on the “suspicion” of Henry about the intentions of the Cardinal. The indication of his feelings being correct is clearly demonstrated by Scarisbrick’s description in Source 3 of Campeggio’s plans being “abetted by Clément”. The fact that the Pope himself was encouraging and supporting the “loitering” of his representative denotes that actually granting the annulment of Henry and Catherine’s marriage was never on the cards. The sack of Rome contributed greatly to the decisions of the papacy as well as the significance of Catherine’s nephew Charles in Europe at the time. However, whereas Source 2 infers that the Cardinal “wasted time” to try and bring the business to “nought”, Source 3 doesn’t actually imply that Campeggio had no intention of giving the divorce. Scarisbrick accused Campeggio of “manufacturing delays” to the divorce which is supported by the fact that in two years very little had been achieved in terms of liberating Henry from his late brother’s bride. His refusal to take “decisive” action may not have been to deny the divorce but simply to postpone it until......

Words: 1185 - Pages: 5

How Far Do You Agree the Sources Suggest That Attlee Was Not a Very Effective Political Leader?

...How far do you agree the sources suggest that Attlee was not a very effective political leader? To a certain extent Sources 1, 2 and 3 all show evidence that would agree with the statement that Attlee was not a very effective political leader. For example all 3 sources suggest that he lacked authority and power, some of the qualities that would produce a great leader. Both sources 1 and 2 describe Attlee as a ‘small’, ‘shy’ man, giving off the impression that Attlee was a very timid character, not capable of running a country and unable to hold a position of power. Source 1 was written by a supporter of Attlee opponents, so may be untrustworthy, as Kingsley Martin opposed Attlee. Although source 2 was written by a left-of-centre newspaper, adding credibility to the source as the criticisms where from a supporter of Attlee. Meaning that the evidence was not be over exaggerated. However the source was written the day after Attlee resigned meaning that the source could be seen as over-generous, as it is looking back over Attlee’s ruling. Both sources 1 and 3 describe Attlee as a school master who is able to ‘restore order’, but ‘did not teach very much’ this displays that Attlee was unable to change or offer opinion. This reinforces the statement that Attlee was not an effective leader. Source 3 also states that Attlee’s summing-up in meetings was often incomplete and he barely produced constructive ideas. This further suggests that Attlee was there to listen, but not to give......

Words: 669 - Pages: 3

How Far Do the Sources Suggest That the British Authorities Responded to the 1916 Easter Rising with Excessive Force?

...How far do the sources suggest that the British authorities responded to the 1916 Easter rising with excessive force? Source 1 portrays the view of George Bernard Shaw, through the form of a letter written to the Daily News within this he shows his dislike towards the British Government for not raising their ‘voice’ at the punishments handed to the leaders of the rising. He shows that he feels the force was excessive when explaining that the ‘Government shot first’ and ‘told the public second’ voicing his anger that they had no time to protest against the punishment that was to be handed to them. He further goes on to portray the force as excessive by explain that he believed them to be ‘prisoners of war’ and therefore he believed it was incorrect to slaughter them’ which further supports the view that it was an excessive use of force. This view although not entirely voiced is also supported in source 3. The Source however does not state that the use of force was excessive however implies it, ‘stating that Asquith went to Dublin to prevent further risings’. It is surprising that the source does not condemn the actions of the government as it quite clearly states that there was ‘bitterness’ surrounding it. Also considering the letter was sent by an Irish Nationalist MP, you would assume that his opinion on the matter would be outrage as the country they are fighting to break union with has murdered some of his own. Although they don’t come from the same party they share......

Words: 550 - Pages: 3

How Far Do You Agree That the Most Important Reason for Wolsey’s Fall from Power Was His Failure to Gain a Divorce for Henry Viii?

...important reason for Wolsey’s fall from power was his failure to gain a divorce for Henry VIII, how far do you agree? Wolsey’s dismissal from Henry’s court came in September 1529, though Wolsey had a plethora of failures before, his fall his failure to get a divorce for Henry VIII proved to be the most significant. This is because Wolsey’s strength of position depended on whether he got Henry what he wanted and the divorce was the most obvious case of Wolsey’s failure to do so. For this reason, this essay will argue that the most important reason for the fall of Wolsey was his failure to get a divorce for Henry VIII. Some argue that Wolsey’s failure was due to his alienation of common people. In his early days, Wolsey sought to ensure that common people got justice through his establishment of the Star Chamber. However, this egalitarian attitude faded during Wolsey’s later years and Wolsey’s own corruptness meant that he fell out of favour with the public. Within the area of the Church, Wolsey was guilty of absenteeism, pluralism and nepotism – appointing his illegitimate son (Thomas Wynter) to high positions in the Church. Furthermore, though his attempt to raise money for Henry’s foreign campaigns came in the form of the Amicable Grant 1525 (a heavy tax) failed, Wolsey was not dismissed on the grounds of this. From this we can see that Wolsey’s alienation from the ‘common’ people did not cause his fall, but something else. Henry did blame the Amicable Grant on Wolsey......

Words: 918 - Pages: 4