Chivalric Imagery In Peter C. Herman's Henry IV

Improved Essays
Peter C. Herman who has a PHD in English and comparative literature, starts off his essay by explaining the transition of the power from Henry VII to Henry VIII. Herman, as described throughout his essay to the readers, describes Henry VIII implementation of chivalric imagery to be a successful king over his father’s idea of leaving the court the same. I agree with Herman’s suggestion, that Henry VIII implementing of Chivalric Imagery is what made him a better king than his father as ill discuss in depth. Henry VII, after winning the civil battle against Richard III, main concern was holding on to his political power after the war ended. Henry decided that the court be ran as it had previously before so he could gain popular consent of the …show more content…
“This same is the fulfiller of the profecye”. (The pageant at Worcester, 1486). Thus, the reasoning for Henry VII naming one of his son’s Arthur. Henry chose not to be a spectate in public ceremonies, for that’s not how he wanted to be seen from the public. Henry didn’t think it was right or proper, so he avoided chivalric imagery. Chivalric imagery is displaying knightly qualities to gain favor or control of the public. A reason that may prove correct is Larry B. Benson suggesting that it was for one of England’s many political situations at the time. This of course was entirely different for Henry VIII’s reign. Henry was the complete opposite, for he implemented Chivalric imagery so he could gain favor of foreign diplomats. He also put forth in his court chivalric love. Aalluring game played by the men and women of the court, that used teasing and flirting to lead the women on. A passage from Herman’s essay best explains his reasoning. “Chivalry’s emphasis on the knight as warrior and the knight as lover also served the dual purpose of the reflecting both his bellicose policies and his youthful position vis-à-vis the more senior members of the

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    He does not believe that the collection of taxes is necessary because it was not specifically stated in the Constitution. Jefferson’s point of view is that he thinks that the Federalists are making claims that are not in the Constitution and he thinks their power is useless. “…Cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government…” (Document C). In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he claimed that the government should try its best to not develop political parties. He warned that overtime it would hurt the government because they would not be able to make decisions.…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Then king George III did not want anything to do with the patriots. The colonies were furious when the king called them out in open rebellion. The king thought that if he would side with the colonist he would not be liked on the Britain. The king worried about him would be peaceful with the colonist they would use that to their advantage. The king worried that if the colonist used their bond to their leverage the king would not hear the end of it from the British colonist.…

    • 752 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Isn’t fear supposed t to keep the people at the prince’s convenience? Trump did not consider the aspect of love is still important. The prince/ruler, must make sure that the fear is not also hatred. Hatred causes the people to be at odds with their ruler. Trump was also contradictory to the example of Putin.…

    • 942 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    When the colonies were planning on seceding from British Rule, they included in the Declaration of Independence reasons why they felt they should be independent. These items were called grievances, and they are the things that the colonists wanted to have changed if they were to ever become independent. One of the first grievances explains how the King of England at this time, King George III, was vetoing laws which the colonists thought were necessary. This does not apply today, because Obama has rarely vetoed anything that has passed through the House. Another grievance is that certain local laws had to be submitted to the king and were often not looked at for several years before being passed or not.…

    • 526 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    King Lear Loyalty Analysis

    • 1082 Words
    • 5 Pages

    If it had not been for Gloucester’s betrayal of Cornwall, Gonreil, and Regan’s request to abandon Lear, Lear would have been killed by the storm or by the army that had planned to engage in war against his slight rule. Gloucester’s loyal act was not only based off sympathy, but also out of respect for Lear’s rightful kingship. Gloucester acknowledged that Lear still was the rightful King and that he could not be abandoned to a fitful storm simply because of a debate about an amount of unreliable knights. Gloucester’s risk was never acknowledged by Lear more likely because Lear’s sanity had overtaken him, but Gloucester was still not one of the people he regretted having done wrong due to his…

    • 1082 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Throughout his pamphlet Paine points out wrong doings of King George III that persuade Americans that the king does not care about the colonies well being, and that the English monarchy will only act in self interest. This rebuts any other arguments that attempt to show that the English will protect the colonies. When the argument of the advantages of monarchy come about, Paine tells that even though the simplicity of monarchy can be seen as an advantage the English constitution is far too complex. Again, he rebuts arguments to do with the king such as: the king is checked on by others. Paine shows that there is a fault in this argument by stating if the king must be monitored than he cannot be trusted, and that if he is being monitored by the people, than the people are better fit for the crown than the king is.…

    • 1037 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli rejected the notion that a king should follow Christian teachings and the belief that Christian morality was in charge of politics. Instead he believed that political rulers should forgo notions of good or evil and focus on strengthening their kingdom. In his novel The Prince, Machiavelli studied politics by using reason. He states that a while it would be nice for a prince to have “all the name qualities that are reputed good, they cannot all be possessed or observed” and that instead “he should be prudent enough to avoid the scandal of those vices which would lose him the state”. He then goes on to debate whether it is better for a prince to “be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved” and examines other great rulers and leaders who accomplished many triumphs while feared by their people (Machiavelli p 310).…

    • 702 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They viewed it as an attempt to keep them out of politics and from voting, because they could not criticize the Federalists in any way (Hewitt and Lawson 231). They thought that the Federalists had too much power and were too elite, but their free speech was taken away and they could not do much about it. In the Virginia Resolution, a response the Sedition Act, James Madison talked about how the power the government was exercising was not only not granted by the constitution, but was also “expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto” (James Madison 283). Essentially, the government went against their own constitution that allowed freedom of speech by making it things illegal. They also opposed the Sedition Act because it demonstrated “the political welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power” (Matthew Lyon 283).…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Final EXAM Part II: C Antifederalists vs Federalists Debate Tyranny and the New Constitution Antifederalists like George Mason’s objected to the new Constitution based upon their fear that the National Government would hold too much power and become tyrannical. The main objection that most Antifederalists shared was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights to protect the rights of citizens. Mason argued that since the national laws held supremacy to that of the State laws the “declarations of rights in separate states [were] no security” (EA pg. 16). In addition his confidence in the new system’s structure was stifled in part due to the shadow of representation bestowed in the House of Representatives.…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Maier, when discussing earlier greivances over the White Pines Act, investigated why the colonists opposed this form of government intervention so much. The White Pines Act, although only a legislature that was meant to reserve all white pine trees for the Crown, still bothered colonists because it stepped into their economic and social world and allowed Parliament to make decisions. “The community’s immediate welfare was at stake, not the satisfaction of any anti-British prejudices,” was how Maier described colonial thought. Nothing in the opposition of specific interventions said that the colonists disliked Parliament or negated their power. Colonists just disagreed with where and how Parliament could impose its powers, (Greene, 28–29; Maier,…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays