Compare sources A and B as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne of England [30]
On comparing sources A and B as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne in 1485, it can be said both have relevant use as both give an account of events at the time of Henry VII’s coronation. However it is questionable how reliable each of the two sources are because of the position of the authors in relation to King Henry VII and their willingness to stay loyal.
A key factor which makes sources A and B useful as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne is the background of each of the authors. Source A was written by an unknown English author and Tudor Cleric, commonly now known as “Psuedo-Ingulf”, whereas source B was written by Pope Innocent VIII, the Head of the Roman Catholic Church at the time it was published. Both men were in a remarkably high stature in society in the period of Henry VII’s reign, and both would have a connection to God as they were members of the Church. This is an important aspect because majority of people believed at the time that God had chosen those to be King therefore it should not be questioned and people would trust the sources. Furthermore both authors would have some association with Henry VII himself as it was important a relationship was formed between the monarch and his Church, and so the public was more likely to be in favour of the sources as they would have been firsthand accounts. Alternatively source A was written by an unknown author compared to source B written by the leading figure of the Church. Because of this it could be said source A is less reliable as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne as it arouses suspicion as to the purpose of the extract and also their intentions of revealing the events.
The Essay on Which Of Richard Iii, Henry Vii And Henry Viii Was The Most Effective Monarch?
Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII were all effective Kings for different reasons, although they were all effective some were much more effective than others. An effective king is a king that runs the country well. That keeps peace within himself, nobles, knights and peasants. Other factors of being an effective king are to keep a good foreign policy throughout Europe and keeping power by good ...
A further reason for reviewing the reliability of sources A and B as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne is the date and time at which they were both written. With source A being written in 1486, one year after Henry VII was crowned King of England, and source B being written in the same year of his coronation of 1485, it is evident that both sources are contemporary and relevant at the time. The fact both sources recall the order of events after he was crowned King within one year, it suggests both authors should be taken seriously as their comments would reflect the atmosphere of the people at the time he became King. This is especially useful as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne because both the authors’ accuracy in the recollection of his coronation would guide the English public to be assured the information presented is credible.
In addition the reason why sources A and B were written is another significant factor in explaining how useful they are as evidence of Henry VII’s claim to the throne. Both sources were issued for public distribution and as a way of spreading information throughout the country of their new king; therefore it is questionable how far historians can trust the sources. In both sources it is clear the authors intention is to make sure the public approve of the king and to certify he earned his rightful place on the throne through battle, which explains the positive attributions of the extracts. It can be argued however that considering source A was only published as a means of informing the public in the ‘Croyland Chronicle’ of the events succeeding his crowning, the information could be modified into what Henry VII wanted the public to know and to put an image into their minds of the idyllic new monarch in order for the author to side with the king and prove his loyalty. Likewise source B published in ‘The Pope’s Bull’ would have been subjective towards the King as he was effectively ‘chosen by God’; as a result it is debateable how reliable the source is because people would not doubt the Pope’s judgement nor argue against the Church. In other words source A and B may not be as credible as first thought for the evidence of Henry VII’s claim to the throne because both are open to adaptation to confirm they are in favour of the monarch and to ensure Henry regarded both authors as allies rather than enemies.
The Essay on Making England Henry King Becket
Henry II, one of the Angevin kings, was one of the most effective of all England's monarchs. He came to the throne amid the anarchy of Stephen's reign and promptly collared his errant barons. He refined Norman government and created a capable, self-standing bureaucracy. His energy was equaled only by his ambition and intelligence. Henry survived many wars, rebellions, and controversy to ...
Moreover both source A and B have similarities in the actual context of the extract which makes them useful as evidence of Henry VII’s claim to the throne. The two sources state King Henry VII came to power rightfully through victory on the battlefield at Bosworth, with source A quoting ‘he rules over the English people, not so much by right of blood as of conquest in warfare’. Source A and B both determine Henrys authority stems from his dominating strength as opposed to an inherited cause, therefore the consequence is some people may argue against this right and demand a king of royal blood. Source A is presented in a more informal manner than source B, rather like a journal entry recounting a particular event, compared to source B which comes across as a much more important proclamation considering it was produced by the Pope himself. Both sources refer to Henry as ‘our sovereign lord the king’ which suggests regardless of their background they viewed Henry with the same aspects. The significance of this is to show although both sources agreed Henry secured his claim to the throne as the King of England through a ‘noble victory’, they differ in the form they were written in and also the language in which they were written, suggesting source A was produced more to describe the events, compared to source B which was aimed to portray a great image and express the Church’s approval of the king.
To conclude it can be said source A and B are equally as reliable as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne due to both authors being in relation to the Catholic Church; this could imply their views may be altered considering God had chosen the King therefore it would be wrong to present negative views. Overall historians could take into account that both extracts were written during the same time and so they would be fairly similar in context and just as credible as evidence for Henry VII’s claim to the throne.
