Saturday, September 7, 2019
Criminal Sentencing Essay Example for Free
Criminal Sentencing Essay A basic question in criminal sentencing is â€Å"What are the purposes of criminal sentencing?† Scholars, too, reflect on the purposes of punishment. There are commonly four identified purposes: Retribution. The oldest but considered the most important purpose for sentencing is retribution, that is, inflicting on an offender suffering comparable to that caused by the offense. An act of social vengeance, retribution is grounded in a view of society as a system of moral balance. When criminality upsets this balance, punishment exacted in comparable measure restores the moral order, as suggested in the biblical dictum â€Å"An eye for an eye. †While contemporary critics of retribution sometimes charge that this policy lacks the force to reform the offender, it still remains a strong justification for punishment. A second purpose for sentencing, deterrence amounts to the attempt to discourage criminality through punishment. Initially, deterrence arose as the banner of reformers seeking to end what they saw as excessive punishments based on retribution. Critics asked, â€Å"Why put someone to death for stealing if that crime could be discouraged with a prison sentence?† As the concept of deterrence in sentencing gained widespread acceptance, execution and physical mutilation of criminals were gradually replaced by milder forms of punishment such as imprisonment.                       There are two types of deterrence, specific deterrence demonstrates to the  individual offender that crime does not pay while in general deterrence, the punishment of one person serves as an example to others. Rehabilitation. The third purpose for sentencing, rehabilitation, involves reforming the offender to preclude subsequent offenses. It resembles deterrence by motivating the offender to conform. But rehabilitation emphasizes constructive improvement while deterrence and retribution make the offender suffer. In addition, while retribution demands that the punishment fit the crime, rehabilitation focuses on the distinctive problems of each offender. Thus identical offenses would call for similar acts of retribution but different programs of rehabilitation. Social protection. A final purpose for sentencing is social protection, or rendering an offender incapable of further offenses either temporarily through incarceration or permanently by execution. Like deterrence, social protection is a rational approach to punishment and seeks to protect society from crime.                The different forms of sentencing used in different jurisdictions include institutional sanctionsâ€â€time to be served in prison or jail; and noninstitutional sanctionsâ€â€fines and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, and service of the sentence in the community in the form of probation or parole. Recently the arsenal of punishments has been considerably enlarged by the creation of mixed sanctions and alternatives to either institutional or noninstitutional sanctions. The following are the variety of options for sentencing: Death penalty. In thirty-six states (as well as the federal courts), courts may impose a sentence of death for any offense designated a capital crime, for example, first-degree murder. Incarceration. The defendant may be sentenced to serve a term in a local jail, state prison, or federal prison. Probation. The defendant may be sentenced to a period of probationary supervision                within the community. Split sentence. A judge may split the sentence between a period of incarceration and a period of probation. Restitution. An offender may be required to provide financial reimbursement to cover the cost of a victim’s losses. Community service. An offender may be required to spend a period of time performing public service work. Fine. An offender may be required to pay a certain sum of money as a penalty and/or as an alternative to or in conjunction with incarceration. This leads us to the next question, â€Å"What are some reforms that have been proposed? A recent reform growing out of the victims’ rights movement in the sentencing process is the consideration of statements by the victim, known as â€Å"victim impact statements†(VIS). Twenty-six states have mandated the use of VIS in criminal cases, while another twenty-two states have adopted so-called â€Å"victim bills of rights†that include recognition of the right of a victim to present a VIS. In the VIS, the victim provides a statement about the extent of economic, physical, or psychological harm suffered as a result of the victimization. The victim also can make a recommendation about the type of sentence an offender should receive. Usually the VIS is incorporated into the pre-sentence investigation report written by the probation officer. Research has revealed that a judge’s choice of a sentence is influenced much more by legal considerations than by victim preferences in cases where VIS has been presented (McGarrell, 1999). The third reform proposal is â€Å"restorative justice.†Restorative justice has been a feature of justice systems for a long time, though it was little used until a group of criminologists in the United States and the Commonwealth countries brought the idea back to life. The term restorative justice was virtually unknown a decade ago, and it is still in search of a commonly accepted meaning. Yet, the literature related to this subject has grown rapidly, so that we venture to define it in terms offered by Howard Zehr, published in a symposium of The Justice Professional, entitled â€Å"Criminology as Peacemaking.†Zehr provides contrasting paradigms between the traditional, retributive sense of justice and the newly emerging (or reemerging) restorative sense of justice.            If the proposed reform of restorative justice were adopted, where would that leave us with respect to the traditional â€Å"aims†or â€Å"justifications†of criminal justice? As to retribution (or just desserts), we would still be limited to never imposing an obligation (sanction) that outweighs the harm done. As to incapacitation, even the staunchest advocates of restorative justice recognize that some offenders are far too dangerous to be returned to the community and that their separation from the community is necessary. But the prison population could be vastly reduced. As to resocialization or rehabilitation, the very idea is built into restorative justice, which aims at   restoring the community. Some of the current issues in federal sentencing according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission at https://www.ussc.gov. are the following: The issue on the amendment pertaining to offenses involving cocaine base (crack) and the amendment pertaining to certain criminal history rules, see 72 FR 28558 (May  21, 2007); 72 FR 51882 (September 11, 2007), should be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants. The issue of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the and the United States Sentencing Commission has decided to establish a standing victim’s advisory group pursuant to  28 U.S.C.  § 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. It was stated that the purpose of the advisory group is (1) to assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C.  § 994(o); (2) to provide the Commission its views on the Commission’s activities as they relate to victims of crime; (3) to  disseminate information regarding sentencing issues to organizations represented by the   advisory group and to other victims of crime and victims advocacy groups, as appropriate; and (4) to perform any other functions related to victims of crime as the Commission requests. The victims’ advisory group will consist of not more than 9 members, each of whom may serve not more than two consecutive 3-year terms. The issue on New Yorks Rockefeller laws to curb the drug trade – which directly contributed to a dramatic increase in the states prison population costing the state millions of dollars, but failing to impact drug trafficking. According to a New York  Times editorial, â€Å"New York has made incremental changes to the Rockefeller laws in recent years, but has stopped short of restoring judicial discretion.†A governor-appointed commission charged with studying state sentencing practices, however, has produced a report calling for the end of â€Å"indeterminate sentencing†– the process by which a judge imposes a minimum and a maximum sentence and the Parole Board decides when to release an offender. It further suggests that nonviolent offenders be considered for community-based treatment instead of prison. Finally, Gov. Elliot Spitzers commission recommends restoring prison-based educational and training programs as a means of helping to lower recidivism rates. The website of the Sentencing Project at http://www.sentencingproject.org. mission is to promote reforms in sentencing law and practice, and alternatives to incarceration through their advocacy and research. Moreover, the Sentencing Project provides defense lawyers with sentencing advocacy training and to reduce the reliance on incarceration. Hence, the Sentencing Project has become the leader in the effort to bring national attention to disturbing trends and inequities in the criminal justice system with a successful formula that includes the publication of groundbreaking research, aggressive media campaigns and strategic advocacy for policy reform. As a result of The Sentencing Projects research, publications and advocacy, many people know that this country is the worlds leader in incarceration, that one in three young black men is under control of the criminal justice system, that five million Americans cant vote because of felony convictions, and that thousands of women and children have lost welfare, education and housing benefits as the result of convictions for minor drug offenses. Thus, the Sentencing Project is dedicated to changing the way Americans think about crime and punishment which coincide with the interests of the National Association of Sentencing Advocates. References            McGarrell, E.F. Restorative Justice Conferences. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 1999; Edmund F. McGarrell, â€Å"Cutting Crime through Police-Citizen Cooperation,†American Outlook, Spring 1998, pp. 65–67. The Sentencing Project at http://www.sentencingproject.org. U.S. Sentencing Commission Available at https://www.ussc.gov. Zehr, H.  â€Å"Justice as Restoration, Justice as Respect,†The Justice Professional 11,    nos. 1–2 (1998), pp. 71–87.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Collaboration between Disney and Nature Conservancy Essay Example for Free
Collaboration between Disney and Nature Conservancy Essay Disney is a famous international company around the world. Not only for the production of cartoon and Disneyland, but also the effort that it have made in sustainable development. Disney has made high efficiency collaboration with Nature Conservancy-a famous environmental protection organization. They have worked closely with each other for decades to create the Disney Wilderness Preserve (DWP) in central Florida (â€Å"Working with Companies†, n.d.). Their collaboration was a success (â€Å"Florida, the Disney Wilderness Preserve†, n.d.), bringing positive outcomes for both business corporation and environmental protection. The research question of our group is: How Disney achieve a highly efficient collaboration with the Nature Conservancy? Disney is willing to devote a large number of money to the protection of environment with other organization, but it is a challenge for both Disney and other organization to achieve their target and high efficiency collaboration. As pointed out by Getha-Taylor (2012), â€Å"Trust is a foundational element for effective collaboration.†Without trust, Disney would not choose to partner with the Nature Conservancy. They need to make a same goal in collaboration. Besides, equal power is an important consideration for Disney and Nature Conservancy to start their programs. The high quality of value co-creation is based on the high integration and organization of resources as well as active mobilization and passion of partners. In this report, literature review and conceptual Framework will be the first part. This part is designed to review the literature that related to the research question and topic. Besides, it will outline some key ideas and theories for the collaboration between Disney and other organizations. Each literature review of team members will be selected to make an integrated which are related to the research question and topic. Then the team will draw a connection between the literature review and data coding results, to develop a preliminary conceptual framework.  Secondly, the team will make enough description for the case on Disney. In this part, the partners and partnerships for Disney will be included.  Thirdly, the methodology that used in the research will be explained. The team will provide primary data and secondary data for readers. Also, the team will analysis the data to make it clear for readers to understand the importance of those data. Then, the team will have preliminary results for the research question. Some figures or tables will be used to describe the preliminary results. Finally, the team will make conclusions to summarize the collaboration between Disney and other organizations. Besides, the team will answer the question: How Disney achieve a highly efficient collaboration with the Nature Conservancy? The significance and implications of high efficiency collaboration between Disney and Nature Conservancy. The team will make acknowledgement on the limitation of the study-All achievements and actions of Disney are not very up-to-date, the newest resource comes from Disney’s performance summary report in 2013. The knowledge gap of this report are scientific system to cooperate efficiently between business and NGOs, global strategies in terms of cross-sector cooperation and multi-regional and global alliance. Conclusions The collaboration between Disney and Nature Conservancy is a model for other companies to improve the efficiency in collaboration with organizations and NGOs. They have same goals and trust each other. Besides, their power are equally and Disney provides enough financial support for Nature Conservancy to build and maintain the Disney Wilderness Preserve in Florida. Those factors make the collaboration between Disney and Nature Conservancy become a high-efficiency collaboration. Disney performed efficiently in collaboration with different organizations for its strong executive force and huge spending. However, Disney has challenge in cross-cultural collaboration with other organizations. It required creativeness and multicultural background to deal with. During our research, we found a limitation. All achievements and actions of Disney are not very up-to-date; the newest resource comes from Disney’s performance summary report in 2013. The limitation may affect the accuracy and objectivity of our result to some extent. When researching on these subthemes, one of our research gaps is multi-regional and global alliance. The wetland mitigation program in central Florida is regional, but Disney is able to do more in terms of multi-regional collaboration since there are so many things else they can do. We didn’t find so many things when it comes to how business increase efficiency when partnering with an organization that shares a different culture background The use of quantitative data analysis and qualitative data analysis are quite helpful for us to find the gap and limitations of the topic, they are efficient methods for us to analyzing the data. Disney makes more collaboration with other organizations to improve to sustainable development of itself, such as the collaboration with National 4-H Council. They make a program called Exploring Your Environment program. It provides fun, interesting and hands-on experiences to help young people learn more about the environment around them. Through Disneys support, â€Å"they were able to create the Connecting Urban Youth to the environment program using Exploring Your Environment, and Disney is now able to reach youth in six urban areas across the U.S. Besides, Disney have supported conservation projects for almost 20 years, invested in conservation programs in 114 countries†(Momdjian, 2014) and worked with forest communities to protect wildlife and critical forest habitats. In the future, Disney needs to improve the capacity in communication. Communication is the basis of Disney’s alliance learning and capacity building if they want to corporate efficiently. Alliance enables cross-section corporations to increase working efficiency. Internal development of such expertise may be too costly, inefficient, and time-consuming for most companies. As a result, ally with a partner can let Disney share information or receive feedback from their partners. Reference â€Å"Florida, the Disney Wilderness Preserve†, (n.d.), Retrieved from http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/florida/placesweprotect/the-disney-wilderness-preserve.xml Getha-Taylor, H. (2012). Cross-sector understanding and trust, Public Performance Management Review, 36(2), pp.216-229 Momdjian, C. (2014). Disney and National 4-H Council Join Together to Connect Youth to the Environment. Retrieved from: https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/blog/disney-and-national-4-h-council-join-to
Thursday, September 5, 2019
The extinction of the dinosaurs
The extinction of the dinosaurs Was it an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? The extinction of the dinosaurs started in the cretaceous period, around 65 million years ago, and caused the loss of up to 70% of all life on earth. The way in which the dinosaurs died is a much argued topic which can be explained by a lot of theories one of which is the Asteroid theory. The Asteroid theory There are a lot of reasons to suggest that an asteroid did hit the earth but there are much less reasons to suggest that it did kill the dinosaurs. Walter Alvarez and colleagues brought the asteroid collision theory to attention in 1980 which links the extinction event to a Bolide (an object that cannot be described as a comet, asteroid or meteorite) hitting the earth at just the right speed to cause cataclysmic damage to the Earth. Much of the evidence now suggests that a 5 to 15kilometer wide bolide hit in the vicinity of the Yucatan Peninsula, forming the Chicxulub Crater and started the mass extinction. Some scientists propose that the bolide caused a long drop in Earths atmospheric temperature (Causing the ice age); while others claim that it would have instead created an unusual heat wave. Scientists are not certain whether dinosaurs were thriving or declining before the impact event. Before the asteroid hit, the earth was on a straight axis, it had to be at some point, so this shows that the asteroid hit the earth at such a speed and at a certain angle to knock it off its axis to how it is now, which may show that the dinosaurs could then not cope with the earths new position and died because of it. Also the asteroid hitting the earth would cause a chain reaction of volcano explosions, earthquakes and other storms which may have spanned thousands of years and we may still be suffering the effects of these today. The soot and debris from the impact would have blocked out the suns rays. This would eventually kill the dinosaurs through lack of vitamin D. Agree? The asteroid theory is the most accepted one because there is more evidence that proves it than evidence that disproves the theory. Like the tilt the world is on at the moment couldnt be the same tilt the word was on at first, it must have been thrown off its tilt some time, and this asteroid is the perfect example of this. Another thing that agrees with that theory is dinosaurs died out in the cretaceous period, the same year the asteroid hit the earth. A crater can be found in the Gulf of Mexico on the Yucatan peninsula which dates back 65 million years ago, to the cretaceous period of time. Disagree? The one thing I would disagree with is the fact that scientists have found out that dinosaurs have died out over a long period of time after it would have hit and the asteroid would have wiped out the dinosaurs and most life on earth over a short period of time. Effects on marine life As a result of the asteroid hitting the levels of oxygen in the sea would have decreased as deep sea water was dragged to the surface by huge under water currents. Plankton would have died because of this sudden change in environment and temperature, as a consequence there was a huge collapse of the food chain, and certain animals would have died because of this collapse. Acid rain may also have increased the acidity of the sea, killing vulnerable species. Problems with the theory The asteroid theory is the most popular one although problems with this still puzzle scientists. There are still dinosaur fossils from the time of the asteroid impact that palaeontologists have not yet found, and there is no evidence to prove that the dinosaurs didnt die out before the impact. In fact, before the Chicxulub asteroid impacted, dinosaurs had been steadily declining for tens of thousands of years. During the life of the earth, many mass extinction events have taken place, and a large number of asteroids have hit the planet. There is no hard evidence that would suggest that the impacts have caused mass extinctions. Some species are climate sensitive, such as frogs, and these survived the cretaceous extinction event, we still have them today. This brings into question what effect in the long term does an asteroid impact actually have on the environment? The asteroid theory still remains the strongest one, in spite of the problems, for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Why the dinosaurs became extinct may not lie with one explanation but with a series of events, asteroid impacts and mass volcanic eruptions all combining together causing the climate to be unbearable to most living creatures. Was this a case of the creatures being in the wrong place at the wrong time in history? Conclusion My conclusion on this subject is that I side with those that believe it was an asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs because the evidence points more towards the asteroid than other theories. However as there is yet any real hard evidence to prove this I cannot say defiantly that this is the case. The reason that the dinosaurs became extinct is an argument that scientists will disagree on for many, many years to come. No doubt one day in the future, a scientist doing some routine research will accidentally stumble across the missing piece of this long time puzzle. Website list/Preferences http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Did-Dinosaurs-Become-Extinct?id=2230230 http://www.newuniverse.co.uk/Dinosaur.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Issues of Mannerism Essay -- Essays Papers
Issues of Mannerism The movement in painting that is now referred to as Mannerism began in Italy around 1520, influenced artists throughout Europe, and lasted until the end of the 16th century. The word Mannerism originates from the Italian word maniera which translates into the English word style. The basis of Mannerism then is style; it’s a period of art where the focus was on grace and beauty. While preceding trends of Renaissance art looked to nature to find their style, working to perfect it, Mannerists manipulated nature creating a gross perfection of human form, idealizing forms to the point of abstraction. Definitions of Mannerist art as well as the reasons for its appearance as a movement are still contested today. For a definition of mannerism to have validity, it must offer a valid origination of the movement. Much is revealed when the reasons behind a certain artistic expression are clear. Until the 19th century, Mannerist art was considered by most to be perverse and capricious. It was considered simply an excessive use of a specific manner of which contained qualities that were strange and unjustified. It was thought that extravagance, a need for increased productivity, and a lack of artistic knowledge led to the Mannerist style. In the early part of the 20th century, these generalizations were considered unfair, and many new theories about the origins of Mannerism surfaced. Some theories suggest that artists were displaying a conscious deviance, painting against the rules of classical art, and rebelling against the High Renaissance and the ideal of naturalness. The spiritual unrest of the age is often considered the root of this deviant artistic behavior. John Shearman points out in Mannerism that the wars of the early 16th century created a period of economic and social disturbance creating the growth of Mannerist style. He says "most works of art are insulated in the mind of the artist even from his personal crises, joys and tragedies" (40). More reasonable, he says, are explanations of Mannerism in terms of sociological and religious influences. There was a new development in patronage during this period where works were commissioned for no other reason than to have a work made by a certain artist. Many times the subject, and/or the medium were to be decided upon by the artist. Rosso Fiorentino’s Desc... ...tle ‘Mannerism’ creates the illusion that it was a conscious movement like one of the 19th or 20th centuries. Mannerism didn’t have a focus, the artists weren’t working toward a common goal. The artists of Mannerism were influenced by all that came before them: antiquity, their predecessors and artistic peers, but Mannerists were most importantly looking toward the future and their own imaginations. Artists were for the first time were creating art for the sake of art. The goal of art was no longer intended completely as social or religious propaganda to be determined by the patron. Mannerist art was influenced by imagination and based on fantasy, and it was largely aimed at the enjoyment of an audience. Works Cited Tansey, Richard G. and Fred S. Kleiner. Gardner’s Art Through the Ages. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1996. Janson, H.W. and Anthony F. Janson. History of Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1997. Fenton, James. Introduction. Les Miserables. By Victor Hugo. New York: Dewynters, 1997. Waldman, Diane. Roy Lichtenstein. New York: Rizzoli International, 1993. Waldman, Diane. Roy Lichtenstein. Austria: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1969.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Reflection of Edgar Allan Poes Pessimistic Moods in The Raven :: Poe Raven Essays
Reflection of Edgar Allan Poe's Pessimistic Moods in The Raven Throughout literature, an author's works almost always reflect their mood and character. Edgar Allan Poe was an American writer whose short stories and poems reflected his pessimistic moods. One of Poe's poems, "The Raven," is about a raven that flies into the home of a sad and lonely man. This poem best expresses Poe's sense of despair and gloominess because the literary elements used in the poem are a constant reference to them. An example that portrays "The Raven" as a reflection of Poe's despair and gloominess is the poem's setting. The poem takes place in a haunted house during a violent storm. For example, in the poem it says, "On this home by horror haunted," and "..tempest tossed thee here ashore." The time and place of the poem deliver a feeling of negativity and pessimism to the reader. Poe's use of a depressing and negative setting for "The Raven" illustrates his despair and gloominess. Another example that illustrates the poem as an expression of Poe's mood is the raven itself. A raven is a large bird of the crow family with lustrous black feathers and a straight, sharp beak. Poe could have used any bird, however he wanted the reader to experience the gloom and despondency that he experienced. Therefore he wrote about a raven. Finally, Poe's use of assonance throughout the poem also contributed to the poem's illustration of despair and gloominess. Assonance is the repetition of vowel sound. For instance, at the end of each stanza it says, "Quoth the raven, Nevermore," "This is it and nothing more," or a phrase ending with the word more. The repetition of these sounds emphasize the words that contribute to the mood of the poem. Nevermore is a negative word meaning never again. The raven only said this word. Poe emphasizes nevermore because it helps accentuate the depressed and despaired mood of the poem.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Aging in Matthew Arnolds Growning Old and Robert Brownings Rabbi Ben Ezra :: Matthew Arnold Growning Old Essays
Aging in Matthew Arnold's Growning Old and Robert Browning's Rabbi Ben Ezra  Contemporaries of the Victorian Age, Matthew Arnold and Robert Browning wrote the poems, "Growning Old" and "Rabbi Ben Ezra," respectively, to express their views on aging. Arnold suffers tremendously, for he lives in melancholy solitude with his deteriorating body, helpless in his moral and physical pain. Browning, a happier man, finds much joy in his age and comfort in the moral and spiritual strength which God gives him. In effect, while Arnold pessimistically dwells on the physical pain accompanying the aging process and the inevitability of a cruel death, Browning devoutly expresses his optimistic outlook of old age and death as God's consummate end to the labors of life. Arnold's pessimism regarding aging leaves no room for optimism. The reader encounters this negativity right away, for in the first stanza Arnold ascertains, in answer to his question "What is it to grow old?", that aging involves "[losing] the glory of the form." The words "lose the glory" implicate a tragic and perhaps humiliating experience. Furthermore, Arnold describes the loss of "the glory of the form" as a time when "beauty [forgoes] her wreath," a phrase which presents the reader with the image of a queen abandoning her crown, as her time of glory ends forever. Arnold gives the reader another foreboding image of aging in line twenty-four, when he describes himself as being incarcerated by his age with the image of the "hot prison of the present, month to month with weary pain." The words "hot", "weary", "prison", and "pain" effectively portray Arnold's suffering and discomfort to the reader, simultaneously lending to his overall pessimistic standpoint. In addition, Arnold exp eriences an absense of feeling in accordance with his age. In the fourth stanza he declares that old age dies not imply gazing down on the world with "rapt prophetic eyes" and a "heart profoundly stirred/ to weep and feel the fullness of the past." Furthermore, he writes, "Deep in our hidden heart/ Festers the dull remembrance of a change/ But no emotion--none." One critic concurs, stating that Arnold's age induces an "emotional frigidity" (Madden 115). Another critic describes Arnold as having an "incapacity for feeling" (Bush 50). As to the "dull remembrance of a change" Madden adds, "There was always the memory of that 'different world' [which Arnold] had once known..." (115). Most probably, the "different world" of which Madden speaks is Arnold's youth, of which the poet only has a "dull remembrance" left, suggesting that Arnold finds no fulfillment or feeling in the memories of his youth.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
The Triumphant Reign of Henry the Viii-V02
â€Å"Alexandru Ioan Cuza†National College Specialization: Philology – Bilingual English Discipline: English The triumphant reign of Henry the VIII Coordinating Professors: Mariana Gaiu Sorina Soaica Student: Irina Stan 2011 Contents Introduction2 1. Social background of the age3 2. Henry VIII9 2. 1 Henry VIII’s character10 2. 2 Cardinal Wolsey11 2. 3 Henry VIII & Christianity12 a)Popular religious idealism12 b)Christian Humanism and the influence of Greek learning14 2. 4 Henrician Reformation16 a)Henry VIII’s first divorce16 )Supreme head of the Ecclesia Anglicana18 c)The dissolution of the religious houses20 2. 5 The matrimonial adventures of Henry VIII22 2. 6 An extension of English hegemony23 a)The Union of England and Wales23 b)Tudor Irish policy24 c)The need to control Scotland25 Conclusions28 Bibliography29 Introduction The age of the Tudors has left its impact on Anglo-American minds as a watershed in British history. Hallowed tradition, native pa triotism, and post imperial gloom have united to swell our appreciation of the period as a true golden age.Names alone evoke a phoenix-glow – Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Mary Stuart among the sovereigns of England and Scotland; Wolsey, William Cecil, and Leicester among the politicians; Marlowe, Shakespeare, Hilliard, and Byrd among the creative artists. The splendors of the Court of Henry VIII, the fortitude of Sir Thomas More, the making of the English Bible, Prayer Book, and Anglican Church, the development of Parliament, the defeat of the Armada, the Shakespearian moment, and the legacy of Tudor domestic architecture – there are the undoubted climaxes of a simplified orthodoxy in which genius, romance, and tragedy are superabundant.Reality is inevitably more complex, less glamorous, and more interesting than myth. The most potent forces within Tudor England were often social, economic, and demographic ones. Thus if the period became a golden age, it was primarily because the considerable growth in population that occurred between 1500 and the death of Elizabeth I did not so dangerously exceed the capacity of available resources, particularly food supplies, as to precipitate a Malthusian crisis. Famine and disease unquestionably disrupted and disturbed the Tudor economy, but they did not raze it to its foundations, as in the fourteenth century.More positively, the increased manpower and demand that sprang from rising population stimulated economic growth and the commercialization of agriculture, encouraged trade and urban renewal, inspired a housing revolution, enhanced the sophistication of English manners, especially in London, and (more arguably) bolstered new and exciting attitudes among Tudor Englishmen, notably individualistic ones derived from Reformation ideals and Calvinist theology. In order to present a clear picture of 16th century England, we considered depicting Henry VIII reign in a period of instability from the point of view of religion and state limits.The king’s egoism, self-righteousness, and unlimited capacity to brood over suspected wrongs, or petty slights, sprang from the fatal combination of a relatively able but distinctly secondâ€â€rate mind and a pronounced inferiority complex that derived from Henry VII’s treatment of his second son. For the first of the Tudors had found his younger son unsatisfactory; on Arthur’s death, Henry had been given no functions beyond the title of Prince of Walesâ€â€a signal of unmistakable mistrust. As a result, Henry VIII had resolved to rule, even where, as in the case of the Church, it would have been enough merely to reign.He would put monarchic theory into practice; would give the words Rex Imperator a meaning never dreamt of even by the emperors of Rome, if he possibly could. Henry was eager, too, to conquer- to emulate the glorious victories of the Black Prince and Henry V, to quest after the Golden Fleece that was the French Cr own. Repeatedly the efforts of Henry’s more constructive councillors were bedevilled, and overthrown, by the king’s militaristic dreams, and by costly Continental ventures that wasted men, money, and equipment.Evaluation is always a matter of emphasis, but on the twin issues of monarchic theory and lust for conquest, there is everything to be said for the view that Henry VIII’s policy was consistent throughout his reign; that Henry was himself directing that policy; and that his ministers and officials were allowed – freedom of action only within accepted limits, and when the king was too busy to take a personal interest in state affairs. 1. Social background of the ageThe matter is debatable, but there is much to be said for the view that England was economically healthier, more expensive, and more optimistic under the Tudors than at any time since the Roman occupation of Britain. Certainly, the contrast with the fifteenth century was dramatic. In the hu ndred or so years before Henry VII became king of England in 1485, England had been under populated, underdeveloped, and inward-looking compared with other Western countries, notably France. Her recovery after the ravages of the Black Death had been slow – slower than in France, Germany, Switzerland, and some Italian cities.The process of economic recovery in pre-industrial societies was basically one of recovery of population, and figures will be useful. On the eve of the Black Death (1348), the population of England and Wales was between 4 and 5 millions; by 1377, successive plaques bad reduced it to 2. 5 millions. Yet the figure for England (without Wales) was still no higher than 2. 26 millions in 1525, and it is transparently clear that the striking feature of England demographic history between the Black Death and the reign of Henry VIII is the stagnancy of population which persisted until the 1520s.However, the growth of population rapidly accelerated after 1525: Betwe en 1525 and 1541 the population of England grew extremely fast, an impressive burst of expansion after long inertia. This rate of growth slackened off somewhat after 1541, but the Tudor population continued to increase steadily and inexorably, with a temporary reversal only in the late 1550s, to reach 4. 10 millions in 1601. In addition, the population of Wales grew from about 210,000 in 1500 to 380,000 by 1603.While England reaped the fruits of the recovery of population in the sixteenth century, however, serious problems of adjustment were encountered. The impact of a sudden crescendo in demand, and pressure on available resources of food and clothing, within a society that was still overwhelmingly agrarian, was to be as painful as it was, ultimately, beneficial. The morale of countless ordinary Englishman was to be wrecked irrevocably, and ruthlessly, by problems that were too massive to be ameliorated either by governments or by traditional, ecclesiastical philanthropy.Inflation , speculation in land, enclosures, unemployment, vagrancy, poverty, and urban squalor were the most pernicious evils of Tudor England, and these were the wider symptoms of population growth and agricultural commercialization. In the fifteenth century farm rents had been discounted, because tenants were so elusive; lords had abandoned direct exploitation of their demesnes, which were leased to tenants on favourable terms. Rents had been low, too, on peasants’ customary holdings; labour services had been commuted, and servile villeinage had virtually disappeared from the face of the English landscape by 1485.At the same time, money wages had risen to reflect the contraction of the wage-labour force after 1348, and food prices had fallen in reply to reduced market demand. But rising demand after 1500 burst the bubble of artificial prosperity born of stagnant population. Land hunger led to soaring rents. Tenants of farms and copyholders were evicted by business-minded landlords. Several adjacent farms would be conjoined, and amalgamated for profit, by outside investors at the expense of sitting tenants. Marginal land would be converted to pasture for more profitable sheep-rearing.Commons were enclosed, and waste land reclaimed, by landlords or squatters, with consequent extinction of common grazing rights. The literary opinion that the active Tudor land market nurtured a new entrepreneurial class of greedy capitalists grinding the faces of the poor is an exaggeration. Yet it is fair to say that not all landowners, claimants, and squatters were entirely scrupulous in their attitude; certainly a vigorous market arose among dealers in defective titles to land, with resulting harassment of many legitimate occupiers. The greatest distress sprang, nevertheless, from inflation and unemployment.High agricultural prices gave farmers strong incentives to produce crops for sale in the dearest markets in nearby towns, rather than for the satisfaction of rural subsisten ce. Rising population, especially urban population, put intense strain on the markets themselves: demand for food often outstripped supply, notably in years of poor harvests due to epidemics or bad weather. In cash terms, agricultural prices began to rise faster than industrial prices from the beginning of the reign of Henry the VIII, a rise which accelerated as the sixteenth century progressed.Yet in real terms, the price rise was even more volatile than it appeared to be, since population growth ensured that labour was plentiful and cheap, and wages low. The size of the work-force in Tudor England increasingly exceeded available employment opportunities; average wages and living standards declined accordingly. Men (and women) were prepared to do a day’s work for little more than board wages; able-bodied persons, many of whom were peasants displaced by rising rents or the enclosure of commons, drifted in waves to the towns in quest of work.The best price index hitherto const ructed covers the period 1264-1954, and its base period is most usefully 1451-75 – the end of the fifteenth-century era of stable prices. From the index, we may read the fortunes of the wage-earning consumers of Tudor England, because the calculations are based on the fluctuating costs of composite units of the essential foodstuffs and manufactured goods, such as textiles, that made up an average family shopping basket in southern England at different times.Two indexes are, in fact, available: first the annual price index of the composite basket of consumables; secondly the index of the basket expressed as the equivalent of the annual wage rates of building craftsmen in southern England. No one supposes that building workers were typical of the English labour force in the sixteenth century, or at any other time. But the indexes serve as a rough guide to the appalling reality of the rising household expenses of the majority of Englishmen in the Tudor period. t is clear that in the century after Henry VIII’s accession, the average prices of essential consumables rose by some 488 per cent. The price index stood at the 100 or so level until 1513, when it rose to 120. A gradual rise to 169 had occurred by 1530, and a further crescendo to 231 was attained by 1547, the year of Henry VIII’s death. In 1555 the index reached 270; two years later, it hit a staggering peak of 409, though this was partly due to the delayed effects of the currency debasements practiced by Henry VIII and Edward VI.On the accession of Elizabeth I, in I5 58, the index had recovered to a median of 230. It climbed again thereafter, though more steadily: 300 in 1570, 342 in 1580, and 396 in 1590. But the later ISQOS witnessed exceptionally meagre harvests, together with regional epidemics and famine: the index read 515 in 1595, 685 in 1598, and only settled back to 459 in 1600. The index expressed as the equivalent of the building craftsman’s wages gives an equally sob er impression of the vicissitudes of Tudor domestic life.An abrupt decline in the purchasing power of wages occurred between 1510 and 1530, the commodity equivalent falling by some 40 per cent in twenty years. The index fell again in the 1550s, but recovered in the next decade to a position equivalent to two-thirds of its value in 1510. It then remained more or less stable until the 1590s, when it collapsed to 39 in 1595, and to a catastrophic nadir of 29 in 1597. On the queen’s death in 1603 it had recovered to a figure of 45â€â€which meant that real wages had dropped by 57 per cent since 1500. These various data establish the most fundamental truth about the age of the Tudors.When the percentage change of English population in the sixteenth century is plotted against that of the index of purchasing power of a building craftsman’s wages over the same period, it is immediately plain that the two lines of development and commensure (see graph). Living standards decl ined as the population rose; recovery began as population growth abated and collapsed between 1556 and I560. Standards then steadily dropped again, until previous proportions were overthrown by the localized famines of 1585-8 and 1595-8â€â€though the cumulative increase in the size of the wage-labour force since 1570 must also have had distorting effects.In other words, population trends, rather than government policies, capitalist entrepreneurs, European imports of American silver, the more rapid circulation of money, or even currency debasements, were the key factor in determining the fortunes of the British Isles in the sixteenth century. English government expenditure on warfare, heavy borrowing, and debasements unquestionably exacerbated inflation and unemployment. But the basic facts of Tudor life were linked to population growth. In view of this fundamental truth, the greatest triumph of Tudor England was its ability to feed itself.A major national subsistence crisis was avoided. Malthus, who wrote his historic Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, listed positive and preventive checks as the traditional means by which population was kept in balance with available resources of food. Positive ones involved heavy mortality and abrupt reversal of population growth. Fertility in England indeed declined in the later 1550s, and again between 1566 and 1571. A higher proportion of the population than hitherto did not marry in the reign of Elizabeth I.Poor harvests resulted in localized starvation, and higher mortality, in 1481-3, 1519â€â€21, 1527-8, 1544-5, 1549-51, 1555-8, 1585-8, and 1595-8. Yet devastating as these years of dearth were for the affected localities, especially for the towns of the 1590s, the positive check of mass mortality on a national scale was absent from Tudor England, with the possible exception of the crisis of 1555â€â€8. On top of its other difficulties, Mary’s government after 1555 faced the most serious mor tality crisis since the fourteenth century: the population of England quickly dropped by about 200,000.Even so, it is not proved that this was a ‘national’ crisis in terms of its geographical range, and population growth was only temporarily interrupted. In fact, the chronology, intensity, and geographical extent of famine in the sixteenth century were such as to suggest that starvation crises in England were abating, rather than worsening, over time. Bubonic plagues were likewise confined to the insanitary towns after the middle 1 of the century, and took fewer victims in proportion to the expansion of population.The inescapable conclusion is that, despite the vicissitudes of the price index the harsh consequences for individuals of changed patterns of agriculture, and the proliferation of vagabondage, an optimistic view of the age of the Tudors has sufficiently firm foundations. The sixteenth century witnessed the birth of Britain’s preâ€â€industrial politi cal economyâ€â€an evolving accommodation between population and resources, economics and politics, ambition and rationality. England abandoned the disaster-oriented framework of the Middle Ages for the new dawn of low-pressure equilibrium.Progress had its price, unalterably paid by the weak, invariably banked by the strong. Yet the tyranny of the price index was not ubiquitous. Wage rates for agricultural workers fell by less than for building workers, and some privileged groups of wage-earners such as the Mendip miners may have enjoyed a small rise in real income. Landowners, commercialized farmers, and property investors were the most obvious beneficiaries of a system that guaranteed fixed expenses and enhanced selling pricesâ€â€it was in the Tudor period that the nobility, gentry, and mercantile classes alike came to appreciate fully the enduring qualities of land.But many wage-labouring families were not wholly dependent upon their wages for subsistence. Multiple occupat ions, domestic self-employment, and cottage industries flourished, especially in the countryside; town-dwellers grew vegetables, kept animals, and brewed beer, except in the confines of London. Wage-labourers employed by great households received meat and drink in addition to cash income, although this customary practice was on the wane by the 1590s.Finally, it is not clear that vagabondage or urban population outside London expanded at a rate faster than was commensurate with the prevailing rise of national population. It used to be argued that the English urban population climbed from 6. 2. per cent of the national total in 1 520 to 8. 4 per cent by the end of the century. However, London’s spectacular growth alone explains this apparent over-population: the leading provincial towns, Norwich, Bristol, Coventry, and York, grew slightly or remained stable in absolute termsâ€â€and must thus have been inhabited by a reduced share of population in proportional terms. . Henry VIII Henry VII’s death in 1509 was greeted with feasting, dancing, universal rejoicingâ€â€for no one who survived until 1547 could have thought, with hindsight, that it was the accession of Henry VIII that inspired the nation’s confidence. Henry VIII succeeded, at barely eighteen years of age, because his elder brother, Arthur, had died in 1502. Under pressure from his councillors, essentially his father’s executors, Henry began his ‘triumphant’ reign by marrying his late brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragonâ€â€a union that was to have momentous, not to say revolutionary, consequences.He continued by executing Empson and Dudley, who were now thrown to the wolves in ritual expiation of their former employer’s financial prudence. Needless to say, these executions were a calculated ploy to enable the new regime to profit from the stability won by Henry VII without incurring any of its attendant stigmasâ€â€no one complained th at Henry VIII’s government omitted to cancel the last batch of outstanding bonds until well into the 1520s.Yet Henry VIII had started as he meant to go on; something of the king’s natural cruelty, and inherent assumption that clean breaks with the past could solve deepâ€â€rooted problems, was already evident. 2. 1 Henry VIII’s character Henry VIII’s character was certainly fascinating, threatening, and intensely morbid, as Holbein’s great portrait illustrates to perfection.The king’s egoism, self-righteousness, and unlimited capacity to brood over suspected wrongs, or petty slights, sprang from the fatal combination of a relatively able but distinctly secondâ€â€rate mind and a pronounced inferiority complex that derived from Henry VII’s treatment of his second son. For the first of the Tudors had found his younger son unsatisfactory; on Arthur’s death, Henry had been given no functions beyond the title of Prince of Wale sâ€â€a signal of unmistakable mistrust. As a result, Henry VIII had resolved to rule, even where, as in the case of the Church, it would have been enough merely to reign.He would put monarchic theory into practice; would give the words Rex Imperator a meaning never dreamt of even by the emperors of Rome, if he possibly could. Henry was eager, too, to conquer- to emulate the glorious victories of the Black Prince and Henry V, to quest after the Golden Fleece that was the French Crown. Repeatedly the efforts of Henry’s more constructive councillors were bedevilled, and overthrown, by the king’s militaristic dreams, and by costly Continental ventures that wasted men, money, and equipment.Evaluation is always a matter of emphasis, but on the twin issues of monarchic theory and lust for conquest, there is everything to be said for the view that Henry VIII’s policy was consistent throughout his reign; that Henry was himself directing that policy; and that his mini sters and officials were allowed – freedom of action only within accepted limits, and when the king was too busy to take a personal interest in state affairs. 2. 2 Cardinal Wolsey Cardinal Wolsey was Henry VIII’s first minister, and the fourteen years of that proud but efficient ascendancy (15 15-29) saw the king in a comparatively â€â€restrained mood.Henry, unlike his father, found writing ‘both tedious and painful’; he preferred hunting, dancing, dallying, and playing the lute. In his more civilized moments, Henry studied theology and astronomy; he would wake up Sir Thomas More in the middle of the night in order that they might gaze at the ‘stars from the roof of a royal palace. He wrote songs, and the words of one form an epitome of Henry’s youthful sentiments. Pastime with good company I love and shall until I die. Grudge who lust, but none deny; So God be pleased, thus live will I; For my pastance,Hunt, sing and dance; My heart is se t All goodly sport For my comfort: Who shall me let? Yet Henry himself set the tempo; his pastimes were only pursued while he was satisfied with Wolsey. Appointed Lord Chancellor and Chief Councillor on Christmas eve 1515, Wolsey used the Council and Star Chamber as instruments of ministerial power in much the way that Henry VII had used them as vehicles of royal powerâ€â€though Wolsey happily pursued uniform and equitable ideals of justice in Star Chamber in place of Henry VII’s selective justice linked to fiscal advantage.But Wolsey’s greatest asset was the unique position he obtained with regard to the English Church. Between them, Henry and Wolsey bludgeoned the pope into granting Wolsey the rank of legate a latere for life, which meant that he became the superior ecclesiastical authority in England, and could convoke legatine synods.Using these powers, Wolsey contrived to subject the entire English Church and clergy to a massive dose of Tudor government and ta xation, and it looks as if an uneasy modus vivendi prevailed behind the scenes in which Henry agreed that the English Church was, for the moment, best controlled by a churchman who was a royal servant, and the clergy accepted that it was better to be obedient to an ecclesiastical rather than a secular tyrantâ€â€for it is unquestionably true that Wolsey protected the Church from the worst excesses of lay opinion while in office. . 3 Henry VIII & Christianity The trouble was that, with stability restored, and the Tudor dynasty apparently secure, England had started to become vulnerable to a mounting release of forces, many of which were old ones suppressed beneath the surface for years, and others which sprang from the new European mood of reform and selfâ€â€criticism. Anti – was the most volcanic of the smoldering emotions that pervaded the English laity; an ancient ‘disease’, it had been endemic in British society since Constantine’s conversion to Christianity.By the sixteenth century, English anti-clericalism centered on three major areas of lay resentment: first, opposition to such ecclesiastical abuses as clerical fiscalism, absenteeism, pluralism, maladministration, and concubinage; secondly, the excessive numbers of clergy, as it appeared to the laityâ€â€monks, friars, and secular priests seemed to outnumber the laity, and form a caste of unproductive consumers, which was untrue but reflected lay xenophobia; and thirdly, opposition to the jurisdiction of the bishops and Church courts, especially in cases of heresy.It was pointed out by prominent writers, notably the grave and learned Christopher St. German (1460-1541), that the Church’s procedure in cases of suspected heresy permitted secret accusations, hearsay evidence, and denied accused persons the benefit of purgation by oath helpers or trial by jury, which was a Roman procedure contrary to the principles of native English common lawâ€â€a clerical plo t to deprive Englishmen of their natural, legal rights. Such ideas were manifestly explosive; for they incited intellectual affray between clergy and common lawyers. a) Popular religious idealismPopular religious idealism was another major problem faced by the English ecclesiastical authorities. Late medieval religion was sacramental, institutional and ritualistic; for ordinary people it seemed excessively dominated by ‘objective` Church ritual and obligation, as opposed to ‘subjective’ religious experience based on Bible reading at home. The educated classes, who were the nobility clergy, and rich merchants, knew that traditional Catholic piety and meditation did not lack for subjectivity and individual introspection, but few non-literate persons had the mental discipline needed to meditate with any degree of fulfillment.For ordinary people, personal religion had to be founded on texts of Scripture and Bible stories (preferably illustrated ones), but vernacular B ibles were illegal in Englandâ€â€the Church authorities believed that the availability of an English Bible, even an authorized version, would ferment heresy by permitting Englishmen to form their own opinions. Sir Thomas More, who was Wolsey’s successor as Lord Chancellor, was the premier lay opponent of the commissioning of an English Bible, and ally of the bishops.He declared, in his notorious proclamation of 22 June 1530, that ‘it is not necessary the said Scripture to be in the English tongue and in the hands of the common people, but that the distribution of the said Scripture, and the permitting or denying thereof, dependant only upon the discretion of the superiors, as they shall think it convenient’. More pursued a policy of strict censorship: no books in English printed outside the realm on any subject whatsoever were to be imported; he forbade the printing of Scriptural or religious books inEngland, too, unless approved in advance by a bishop. It wa s a case of one law for the rich and educated, who could read the Scriptures in Latin texts and commentaries, and another for the poor, who depended on oral instruction from semi-literate artisans and travelling preachers. But More and the bishops were swimming against the tide. The invention of printing had revolutionized the transmission of new ideas across Western Europe, including Protestant ideas. Heretical books and Bibles poured from the presses of English exiles abroad, notably that of William Tyndale at Antwerp.The demand for vernacular Scriptures was persistent, insistent, and widespread; even Henry VIII was enlightened enough to wish to assent to it, and publication an English Bible in Miles Coverdale’s translation was first achieved in 1536, a year after More’s death. b) Christian Humanism and the influence of Greek learning Of the forces springing from the new European mood of reform and self-criticism, Christian Humanism and the influence of Greek learnin g came first.The humanists, of whom the greatest was Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467-1536), rejected scholasticism and elaborate ritualism in favor of wit and simple biblical piety, or philosophia Christi, which was founded on primary textual scholarship, and in particular study of the Greek New Testament. Erasmus read voraciously, wrote prodigiously, and travelled extensively; he made three visits to England, and it was in Cambridge in 1511-14 that he worked upon the Greek text of his own edition of the New Testament, and revised his Latin version that improved significantly on the standard Vulgate text.But the renaissance of Greek learning owed as much to a native Englishman, John Colet, the gloomy dean of St. Paul’s and founder of its school. Colet, who was also young Thomas More’s spiritual director, had been to Italy, where he had encountered the Neo-Platonist philosophy of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola. He had mastered Greek grammar and literature, which he then helped to foster at Oxford and at his school, and the fruits of his philosophical and literary knowledge were applied to Bible studyâ€â€especially to the works of St. Paul. The result was a method of Scriptural exegesis that broke new ground.Colet emphasized the unity of divine truth, a literal approach to texts, concern for historical context, and belief in a personal and redemptive Christ. These were exciting ideas, and they inspired both Erasmus and the younger generation of English humanists. The clarion call of humanist reform was sounded in 1503, when Erasmus published A Handbook of a Christian Knight, a compendium, or guide, for spiritual life. (Parvulorum Institutio, 1512-13) This book encapsulated the humanism, evangelism, and laicism that its author had imbibed from Colet, and made Europe uncomfortably aware that the existing priorities of the Church would not do.Erasmus added reforming impetus to traditional lay piety, and his pungent criticisms of the scholasti c theologians, of empty ritual, ecclesiastical abuses, and even the mores of the Papacy, were as stimulating as they were embarrassing. For Erasmus, whose classic satire was Praise of Folly (1514), highlighted his reforming posture by means of his immortal wit, combining the serious, the humorous, and the artistic in peerless texture, and delighting everyone except the senior Church authorities.Wit is an essential literary commodity, and Erasmus drew on his as from a bottomless purseâ€â€which was just as well, for it was his sole pecuniary endowment. His effervescent humor flowed quite naturally. Works of piety, that might otherwise have been mere pebbles thrown into the European pond, thus generated ripples that increasingly had the force of tidal waves. The best English exponent of humanist satire in the wake of Praise of Folly was Thomas More, whose Utopia, first published at Louvain in 1516, described imaginary and idealized society of pagans living on a remote island in acc ordance with principles of natural virtue.By implicitly comparing the benign social customs and enlightened religious attitudes of the ignorant Utopians with the inferior standards, in practice, of (allegedly) Christian Europeans, More produced a strident indictment of the latter, based purely on deafening silenceâ€â€a splendid, if perplexing, achievement of the sort More perennially favored. But to the distress of Erasmus, More abandoned reform for repression and extermination of heresy during his thousand days as Lord Chancellor, and has gone down to history , save in the writings of his a apologists as persecutor rather than a prophet.However, his terrible end in 1535 as a victim of Henry VIII’s vengeance, and his willingness to suffer torment for the truth he had discovered in the (then controversial) dogma of papal primacy, perpetually guarantee that his steadfastness was not a delusion; when the axe fell, Utopia’s author earned his place among the few who hav e enlarged the hori2ons of the human spirit. In fairness to More, the Brave New World of Utopia had been crudely shattered by Luther’s debut upon the European stage in1517. For the Christian Humanists, to their sorrow, had unintentionally, but irreversibly, prepared the way for the spread of Protestantism.In England, the impact of Lutheranism far exceeded the relatively small number of converts, and the rise of the â€Å"new learning†, as it was called, became the most potent of the- forces released in the 1520s and 1530s. Luther’s ideas and numerous books rapidly penetrated the universities, especially Cambridge, the City of London, the Inns of Court, and even reached Henry VIII s Household through the intervention of Anne Boleyn and her circle. At Cambridge, the young scholars influenced included Thomas Cranmer and Matthew Parker, both of whom later became Archbishops of Canterbury.Wolsey naturally made resolute efforts as legate to stamp out the spread of Pro testantism, but without obvious success. His critics blamed his reluctance to burn men for heresy as the cause of his failureâ€â€for Wolsey would burn books and imprison men, but shared the humane horror of Erasmus at the thought of himself committing bodies to the flames. However the true reason for Luther’s appeal was that he had given coherent doctrinal expression to the religious subjectivity of individuals, and to their distrust of Rome and papal monarchy.In addition his view of the ministry mirrored the instincts of the anticlerical laity, and his answer to concubinage was the global solution of clerical marriage. 2. 4 Henrician Reformation a) Henry VIII’s first divorce Into this religious maelstrom dropped Henry VIII's first divorce. Although Catherine of Aragon had borne five children, only the Princess Mary (b. 1516) had survived, and the king demanded the security of a male heir to protect the fortunes of the Tudor dynasty.It was clear by 1527 that Cather ine was past the age of childbearing; meanwhile Henry coveted Anne Boleyn, who would not comply without the assurance of marriage. Yet royal annulments were not infrequent, and all might have been resolved without drama, or even unremarked, had not Henry VIII himself been a proficient, if mendacious, theologian. The chief obstacle was that Henry, who feared international humiliation, insisted that his divorce should be granted by a competent authority in England-this way he could de rive his wife of her legal rights, and bully his Episcopal judges.But his marriage had been founded on Pope Julius II’s dispensation, necessarily obtained by Henry VIII to enable the young Henry VIII to marry his brother’s widow in the first place, and hence the matter pertained to Rome. In order to have his case decided without reference to Rome, in face of the Papacy’s unwillingness to concede the matter, Henry had to prove against the reigning pope, Clement VII that his predecesso r’s dispensation was invalid  then the marriage would automatically terminate, on the grounds that it had never legally existed.Henry would be a bachelor again. However, this strategy took the king away from matrimonial law into the quite remote and hypersensitive realm of papal power. If Julius II’s dispensation was invalid, it must be because the successors of St. Peter had no power to devise such instruments, and the popes were thus no better than other human legislators who had exceeded their authority. Henry was a good enough theologian and canon lawyer to know that there was a minority opinion in Western Christendom to precisely this effect.He was enough of an egotist, too, to fall captive to his own powers of persuasionâ€â€soon he believed that papal primacy was unquestionably a sham, a ploy of human invention to deprive kings and emperors of their legitimate inheritances. Henry looked back to the golden days of the British imperial past, to the time of the Emperor Constantine and of King Lucius I. In fact, Lucius I had never existed- he was a myth, a figment of pre-Conquest imagination.But Henry’s British ‘sources’ showed that this Lucius was a great ruler, the first Christian king of Britain, who had endowed the British Church with all its liberties and possessions, and then written to Pope Eleutherius asking him to transmit the Roman laws. However, the pope’s reply explained that Lucius did not need any Roman law, because he already had the lex Britunniue (whatever that was) under which he ruled both regnum and sacerdotium: For you be God’s vicar in your kingdom, as the psalmist says, ‘Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness to the king’s son’ (Ps. xxii: 1) . . . A king hath his name of ruling, and not of having a realm. You shall be a king, while you rule well; but if you do otherwise, the name of a king shall not remain with you . . . God grant you so to rule the realm of Britain, that you may reign with him forever, whose vicar you be in the realm. Vicarius Dei-vicar of Christ. Henry’s divorce had led him, incredibly, to believe in his royal supremacy over the English Church. b) Supreme head of the Ecclesia Anglicana With the advent of the divorce crisis, Henry took personal charge of his policy and government.He ousted Wolsey, who was hopelessly compromised in the new scheme of things, since his legatine power came directly from Rome. He named Sir Thomas More to the chancellorship, but this move backfired owing to More’s scrupulous reluctance to involve himself in Henry’s proceedings. He summoned Parliament, which for the first time in English history worked with the king as an omnicompetent legislative assembly, if hesitatingly so. Henry and Parliament finally threw off England’s allegiance to Rome in an unsurpassed burst of revolutionary statute-making: the Act of Annates (1532. , the Act of Appeal s (1533), the Act of Supremacy (1534), the First Act of Succession (1534) the Treasons Act (1534), and the Act against the Pope’s Authority (1536). The Act of Appeals proclaimed Henry VIII’s new imperial status-all English jurisdiction, both secular and religious, now sprang from the king-and abolished the pope’s right to decide English ecclesiastical cases. The Act of Supremacy declared that the king of England was supreme head of the Ecclesia Anglicana, or Church of Englandâ€â€not the pope. The Act of Succession was the first of a series of Tudor instruments used to settle the order of succession to the hrone, a measure which even Thomas More agreed was in itself unremarkable, save that this statute was prefaced by a preamble denouncing papal jurisdiction as a ‘usurpation’ of Henry’s imperial power. More, together with Bishop Fisher of Rochester, and the London Carthusians, the most rigorous and honorable custodians of papal primacy and the legitimacy of the Aragonese marriage, were tried for ‘denying’ Henry’s supremacy under the terms of the Treasons Act. These terms inter alia made it high treason maliciously to de rive either king or queen of ‘the dignity, title, or name of their royal estates’â€â€that is to deny Henry’s royal supremacy.The victims of the act, who were in reality martyrs to Henry’s vindictive egoism, were cruelly executed in the summer of 1535. A year later the Reformation legislation was completed by the Act against the Pope’s Authority, which removed the last vestiges of papal power in England, including the pope’s ‘pastoral’ right as a teacher to decide disputed points of Scripture. Henry VIII now controlled the English Church as its supreme head in both temporal and doctrinal matters; his ecclesiastical status was that of a lay metropolitan archbishop who denied the validity of external, papal authority within his territories.He was not a riest, and had no sacerdotal or sacramental functionsâ€â€the king had tried briefly to claim these but had been rebuffed by an outraged episcopate. Yet Henry was not a Protestant, either. Until his death in 1547, Henry VIII believed in Catholicism without the popeâ€â€a curious but typically Henrician application of logic to the facts of soâ€â€called British ‘history’ as exemplified by King Lucius I. As a lay archbishop, Henry could make ecclesiastical laws and define doctrines almost as he pleasedâ€â€provided he did not overthrow the articles of faith.In fact, this gave him a wider latitude than might be thought, because the bishops could not agree what the articles of faith were, beyond the fundamentals of God’s existence, Christ’s divinity, the Trinity, and some of the sacraments. The Greek scholarship of the Christian Humanists had weakened the structure of traditional, medieval Christian doctrine by questioning texts and rejecting scholasticism: a mood of uncertainty prevailed. Before 1529, then, Henry had ruled his clergy through Wolsey; after 1534 he did so personally, and through his new chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, whom Henry soon appointed his (lay) vicegerent in spirituals.A former aide of Wolsey, Cromwell had risen to executive power as a client of the Boleyn interest, and had taken command of the machinery of government, especially the management of Parliament, in January 1532. By combining the offices of Lord Privy Seal and vicegerent, Cromwell succeeded Wolsey as the architect of Tudor policy under Henry, until his own fall in july 1540â€â€but with one striking difference. As vicegerent he was entirely subordinate to Henry; Wolsey, as legate, had been subordinate only as an Englishman.Yet the accomplishment of Henry’s dream to give the words Rex Imperator literal meaning raises a key historical question. Exactly why did the English bishops and abbots, the aristocr acy of the spirit who held a weight of votes in the House of Lords, permit the Henrician Reformation to occur? The answer is partly that Henry coerced his clerical opponents into submission by threats and punitive taxation; but some bishops actually supported the king, albeit sadly, and a vital truth lies behind this capitulation.Those clerics who were politically alert saw that it was preferable to be controlled by the Tudor monarchs personally, with whom they could bargain and haggle, than to be offered as a sacrifice instead to the anticlerical laity in the House of Commons, which was the true alternative to compliance. For as early as 1532, it was on the cards that the Tudor supremacy would be a parliamentary supremacy, not a purely royal one, and only the despotic king’s dislike of representative assemblies ensured that Parliament’s contribution was cut back to the mechanical, though still revolutionary, task of enacting the requisite legislation.It was plain to a ll but the most ultramontane papalists on the Episcopal bench that a parliamentary supremacy would have exposed the clergy directly to the pentâ€â€up emotional fury and hatred of the anticlerical laity and common lawyers. The laity, furthermore, were fortified for the attack by the humanists’ debunking of ritualism and superstition. In short, royal supremacy was the better of two evils: the clergy would not have to counter the approaching anticlerical backlash without the necessary filter of royal mediation. c) The dissolution of the religious housesHenry VIII’s supremacy did save the bishops from the worst excesses of lay anticlericalism, and the king’s doctrinal conservatism prevented an explosion of Protestantism during his reign. However, nothing could save the monasteries. Apart from anticlericalism, three quite invincible forces merged after 1535 to dictate the dissolution of the religious houses. First, the monastic communities almost parent instituti ons outside England and Walesâ€â€this was juridically unacceptable after the Acts of Appeals and Supremacy. Secondly, Henry VIII was bankrupt. He needed to annex the monastic estates in order to restore the Crown’s finances.Thirdly, Henry had to buy the allegiance of the political nation away from Rome and in support of his Reformation by massive injections of new patronageâ€â€he must appease the lay nobility and gentry with a share of the spoils. Thus Thomas Cromwell’s first task as vicegerent was to conduct an ecclesiastical census under Henry’s commission, the first major tax record since Domesday Book, to evaluate the condition and wealth of the English Church. Cromwell’s questionnaire was a model of precision. Was divine service observed? Who were the benefactors? What lands did the houses possess? What rents? and so on. The survey was completed in six months, and Cromwell’s genius for administration was shown by the fact that Valor Ec clesiasticus, as it is known, served both as a record of the value of the monastic assets, and as a report on individual clerical incomes for taxation purposes. The lesser monasteries were dissolved in 1536; the greater houses followed two years later. The process was interrupted by a formidable northern rebellion, the Pilgrimage of Grace, which was brutally crushed by use of martial law, exemplary public hangings, and a wholesale breaking of Henry’s promises to the ‘pilgrims’.But the work of plunder was quickly completed. A total of 56o monastic institutions had been suppressed by November 1539, and lands valued at ? 132,000 per annum immediately accrued to the Court of Augmentations of the King’s Revenue, the new department of state set up by Cromwell to cope with the transfer of resources. Henry’s coffers next received ? I5,000 or so from the sale of gold and silver plate, lead, and other precious items; finally, the monasteries had possessed the right of presentation to about two-fifths of the parochial benefices in England and Wales, and these rights were also added to the Crown’s patronage.The long-term effects of the dissolution have often been debated by historians, and may conveniently be divided into those which were planned, and those not. Within the former category, Henry VIII eliminated the last fortresses of potential resistance to his royal supremacy. He founded six new dioceses upon the remains of former monastic buildings and endowmentsâ€â€Peterborough, Gloucester, Oxford, Chester, Bristol, and Westminster, the last-named being abandoned in 1550. The king then reorganized the ex-monastic cathedrals as Cathedrals of the New Foundation, with revised staffs and statutes.Above all, though, the Crown’s regular income was seemingly doubled-but for how long? The bitter irony of the dissolution was that Henry VIII’s colossal military expenditure in the 1540s, together with the laity’s d emand for a share of the booty, politically irresistible as that was, would so drastically erode the financial gains as to cancel out the benefits of the entire process. Sales of the confiscated lands began even before the suppression of the greater houses was completed, and by 1547 almost two thirds of the former monastic property had been alienated.Further grants by Edward VI and Queen Mary brought this figure to over threeâ€â€quarters by 1558. The remaining lands were sold by Elizabeth I and the early Stuarts. It is true that the lands were not given away: out of 1,593 grants in Henry VIII’s reign, only 69 were gifts or partly so; the bulk of grants (95. 6 per cent) represented lands sold at prices based on fresh valuations. But the proceeds of sales were not invested – quite the opposite under Henry VIII. In any case, land was the best investment.The impact of sales upon the non-parliamentary income of the Crown was thus obvious, and there is everything to be s aid for the view that it was Henry VIII’s constant dissipation of the monarchy’s resources that made it difficult for his successors to govern England. Of the unplanned effects of the dissolution, the wholesale destruction of fine Gothic buildings, melting down of medieval metalwork and jewellery, and sacking of libraries were the most extensive acts of licensed vandalism perpetrated in the whole of British history.The clergy naturally suffered an immediate decline in morale. The number of candidates for ordination dropped sharply; there was little real conviction that Henry VIII’s Reformation had anything to do with spiritual life, or with God. The disappearance of the abbots from the House of Lords meant that the ecclesiastical vote had withered away to a minority, leaving the laity ascendant in both Houses. With the sale of ex-monastic lands usually went the rights of parochial presentation attached to them, so that local laity btained a considerable monopoly of ecclesiastical patronage, setting the pattern for the next three centuries. The nobility and gentry, especially moderateâ€â€sized gentry’ families, were the ultimate beneficiaries of the Crown’s land sales. The distribution of national wealth shifted between 1535 and 1558 overwhelmingly in favor of Crown and laity, as against the Church, and appreciably in favor of the nobility and gentry, as against the Crown. Very few new or substantially enlarged private estates were built up solely out of exâ€â€monastic lands by 1558.But if Norfolk is a typical county, the changing pattern of wealth distribution at Elizabeth’s accession was that 4. 8 per cent of the county’s manors were possessed by the Crown, 6. 5 per cent were Episcopal or other ecclesiastical manors, II. 4 per cent were owned by East Anglican territorial magnates, and 75. 4 per cent had been acquired by the gentry. In 1535, 2. 7 per cent of manors had been held by the Crown, 17. 2 per c ent had been owned by the monasteries, 9. 4 per cent were in the hands of magnates, and 64 per cent belonged to gentry’ families.Without Henry VIII’s preparatory break with Rome, there could not have been Protestant reform in Edward VI’s reignâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€thus evaluation can become a question of religious opinion, rather than historical judgment. However, it is hard not to regard Henry as a despoiler; he was scarcely a creator. Thomas Cromwell did his utmost, often behind the king’s back, to endow his contemporaries with Erasmian, and enlightened idealism: the Elizabethan via media owed much to the eirenic side of Cromwell’s complex character.But Cromwell’s reward was the blockâ€â€ira principis mors est. He was cast aside by his suspicious employer, and fell victim to the hatred of his enemies. And without Wolsey or Cromwell to restrain him, Henry could do still more harm. He resolved to embark on French and Scottish wars, triggering a slow-burning fuse that was extinguished only by the execution of Mary Stuart in February 1587. Yet if Henry turned to war and foreign policy in the final years of his reign, it was because he felt secure at last.Cromwell had provided the enforcement machinery necessary to protect the supreme head from spontaneous internal opposition; Jane Seymour had brought forth the male heir to the Tudor throne; Henry was excited about his marriage to Catherine Howard, and was happily cured of theology. 2. 5 The matrimonial adventures of Henry VIII The matrimonial adventures of Henry are too familiar to recount again in detail, but an outline may conveniently be given. Anne Boleyn was already pregnant when the king married her, and the future Elizabeth I was born on 7 September 1533.Henry was bitterly disappointed that she was not the expected son, blaming Anne and Godâ€â€in that order. Anne had turned out to be a precocious flirt, who meddled fatally in politics: she was ousted and execute d in a coup of May 1536. Henry immediately chose the homely Jane Seymour, whose triumph in producing the baby Prince Edward was Pyrrhic, for she died of Tudor surgery twelve days later. Her successor was Anne of Cleves, whom Henry married in January 1540 to win European allies. But this gentle creature, which Henry rudely called ‘the Flemish mare’, did not suit; divorce was thus easy, as the union was never consummated.Catherine Howard came next. A high-spirited mind, she had been a maid of honour to Anne of Clevesâ€â€entirely inappropriatelyâ€â€and became Henry’s fifth queen in July 1540 as the key to the coup that destroyed Cromwell. She was executed in February 1542 for adultery. Finally, Henry took the amiable Catherine Parr to wife in July 1543. Twice widowed, Catherine was a cultivated Erasmian, under whose benign influence the royal children lived under one roof, and were spared the more malign components of Henry’s paternal indulgence. 2. 6 An extension of English hegemonyHenry VIII’s plans for war which were conceived after his marriage to Catherine Howard, and which hardened when he learned of her infidelity, resurrected youthful dreams of French conquests. Wolsey had monitored the king’s futile early campaigns of 1 511-16, and brilliantly transformed Henry’s military failures into the diplomatic prize of the treaty of London (1518). At the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520, Henry had feted Francis I of France in a Renaissance extravaganza that was hailed as the eighth wonder of the world, for Francis was the king whom Henry loved to hate.More wasteful campaigns in 1522 and 1523 were curtailed by England’s financial exhaustionâ€â€then Henry’s policy fell into labyrinthine confusion. England was at war with France; then in alliance with France. In the end, Henry was perhaps grateful for the European peace which prevailed from 1529 to 1536, and even more relieved by the resumed riva lry that kept Habsburg and Valois mutually engaged until the reverberations of the Pilgrimage of Grace had died away. By 1541 Henry was moving towards a renewed amity with Spain against France, but he was prudent enough to hesitate.Tudor security required that before England went to war with France, no doors should be open to the enemy within Britain itself. This meant an extension of English hegemony within the British Islesâ€â€Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Accordingly Henry undertook, or continued, the wider task of English colonization that was ultimately completed by the Act of Union with Scotland (1707). a) The Union of England and Wales The Union of England and Wales had been presaged by Cromwell’s reforming ambition and was legally accomplished by Parliament in 1536 and 1543.The marcher lordships were shired, English laws and county administration were extended to Wales, and the shires and county boroughs were required to send twenty-four MPs to Parliament at Westm inster. In addition, a refurbished Council of Wales, and new Courts of Great Sessions, were set up to administer the region’s defenses and judicial system. Wales was made subject to the full operation of royal writs, and to English principles of land tenure. The Act of 1543 dictated that Welsh customs of tenure and inheritance were to be phased out and that English rules were to succeed them.Welsh customs persisted in remote areas until the seventeenth century and beyond, but English customs soon predominated. English language became the fashionable tongue, and Welsh native arts went into decline. Englishmen have regarded the Union as the dawn of a civilizing process that ended with the abolition of the Council of Wales in 1689 and of the Great Sessions in 1830. Welshmen, by contrast, view Henry VIII’s Acts as a crude annexation, which technically they wereâ€â€for they were not in the nature of a treaty between negotiating parties as was the case with Scotland in 1 707.In fact, Welsh civilization was already advanced in the sixteenth century, and flourished despite the Acts. Sir John Prise, ia relation of Thomas Cromwell, defended Welsh history against the skepticism of Polydore Vergil; Humphrey Llwyd of Denbigh supported him with geographical learningâ€â€and there were others. John Owen of Plas Du, Llanarmon, and New College, Oxford, enjoyed a higher literary reputation abroad during his lifetime than did William Shakespeare, his contemporary. He wrote 1,500 Latin epigrams in the style of Martial.Welsh grammars were compiled to perpetuate the native tongueâ€â€by Sion Dafydd Rhys (1592. ), who wrote in Latin in order to reach the widest European audience, and by john Davies of Mallwyd (1621), who publicly justified the utility of Welsh studies. b) Tudor Irish policy Tudor Irish policy had begun with Henry VII’s decision that all laws made in England were automatically to apply to Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament could only legislate with the king of England’s prior consent.English territorial influence, in reality, did not extend much beyond the Paleâ€â€the area around Dublinâ€â€and the Irish chiefs held the balance of power. Henry VIII ruled mainly through the chiefs before the Reformation, but was obliged to protect England in the 1530s from a possible papal counterâ€â€attack launched from Ireland. Lord Leonard Grey was named deputy of Ireland by Cromwell, but his coercive actions proved counter-productive. He was replaced by Sir Anthony St. Leger, who made a fresh start. St.Leger reshaped the Irish policy of the Tudors, and his basic philosophy persisted until 1783. Instead of consolidation and coercion, he proposed friend-ship and conciliation, but the essence of the plan was to create a subordinate national superstructure for Ireland by translating Henry VIII’s lordship into kingship. The kings of England were dominus Hiberniae, not rex. But St. Leger persuaded Henry to assume the Crownâ€â€that would overthrow papal claims to feudal overlordship, and subordinate the chiefs to royal authority. Henry assented, and was proclaimed king in June 1541.His understanding was probably that kingship would enhance his security within the British Isles. Moreover, if the idea was to form a framework for peaceful, constitutional relations between the Crown and the Irish nation, that was laudable and altruistic. Yet it was also visionary and impractical. The Irish revenues were insufficient to maintain royal statusâ€â€a separate Council, Star Chamber, Chancery, and Parliament in Dublin, operating independently of, but subject to controls from, the English Parliament and Privy Council.Above all, kingship committed England to a possible full-scale conquest of Ireland in the future, should the chiefs rebel, or should the Irish Reformation, begun by Cromwell, fail. As it turned out, ‘conciliation’ by benevolent kingship was probably worse than ex ternal ‘consolidation’ and ‘coercion’, since Tudor attitudes to conquest in Ireland were based on experiences in the New World, something the disillusioned Edmund Spenser, who lived in Ireland, pointed out in Elizabeth’s reign. The harsh vicissitudes of Irish history, especially in the seventeenth century, were hardly attributable to Henry VIII and St.Leger. However, the new policy of the Tudors perpetuated the disadvantages both of subordination and of autonomy. In the wake of Irish pressure and the revolt of the American Colonies, the British Parliament abandoned its controls over Ireland in 1783. The Act of Union of 1801 reversed this change in favour of direct rule from Westminster, after which Irish history owed nothing to the Tudors. c) The need to control Scotland Yet the linchpin of Tudor security was the need to control Scotland.James IV (1488-1513) had renewed the Auld Alliance with France in 1492 and further provoked Henry VII by offering support for Perkin Warbeck. But the first of the Tudors declined to be distracted by Scottish sabre-rattling, and forged a treaty of Perpetual Peace with Scotland in 1501, followed a year later by the marriage of his daughter, Margaret, to King James. However, James tried to break the treaty shortly after Henry VIII’s accession; Henry was on campaign in France, but sent the earl of Surrey northwards, and Surrey decimated the Scots at Flodden on 9 September 1513.The elite of Scotlandâ€â€the king, three bishops, eleven earls, fifteen lords, and some 10,000 menâ€â€were slain in an attack that was the delayed acme of medieval aggression begun by Edward I and III. The new Scottish king, James V, was an infant, and the English interest was symbolized for the next twenty years or so by the person of his mother, Henry VIII’s own sister. But Scottish panic after Flodden had, if anything, confirmed the nation’s ties with France, epitomized by the regency of john d uke of Albany, who represented the French cause but nevertheless kept Scotland at peace with England for the moment.The French threat became overt when the mature James V visited France in 1536, and married in quick succession Madeleine, daughter of Francis I, and on her death Mary of Guise. In 1541 James agreed to meet Henry VIII at York, but committed the supreme offence of failing to turn up. By this time, Scotland was indeed a danger to Henry VIII, as its government was dominated by the French faction led by Cardinal Beaton, who symbolized both the Auld Alliance and the threat of papal counter-attack. In October 1542 the duke of Norfolk invaded Scotland, at first achieving little.It was the Scottish counterstroke that proved to be a worse disaster even than Flodden. On 25 November 1542, 3,000 English triumphed over 10,000 Scots at Solway Mossâ€â€and the news of the disgrace killed James V within a month. Scotland was left hostage to the fortune of Mary Stuart, a baby born on ly six days before James’s death. For England, it seemed to be the answer to a prayer. Henry VIII and Protector Somerset, who governed England during the early years of Edward VI’s minority, none the less turned advantage into danger.Twin policies were espoused by which war with France was balanced by intervention in Scotland designed to secure England’s back door. In 1543 Henry used the prisoners taken at Solway Moss as the nucleus of an English party in Scotland; he engineered Beaton’s overthrow, and forced on the Scots the treaty of Greenwich, which projected union of the Crowns in form of marriage between Prince Edward and Mary Stuart. At the end of the same year, Henry allied with Spain against France, planning a combined invasion for the following spring.But the invasion, predictably, was not concerted. Henry was deluded by his capture of Boulogne; the emperor made a separate peace with France at Crepi, leaving England’s flank exposed. At ast ronomical cost the war continued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)