The thesis explores the development of Shakespeare’s political ideas, in particular his exploration of authority, and the legitimacy of resistance towards it, in the two English history tetralogies (as well as the self-contained history, King John), and examines the ways in which this protracted engagement with the question of kingship – and governance more generally – informs his turn to tragedy towards the end of the 1590s. The thesis argues that criticism has tended to downplay the importance of the first tetralogy in the Shakespeare canon (particularly the Henry VI plays), and as a corollary it has overlooked the important continuities that can be traced from Shakespeare’s earliest engagement with politics to his treatment of power in Julius Caesar and Hamlet. The thesis sees the history plays as essentially paradoxical and ambivalent. Shakespeare presents the past as both a shining example to which each succeeding generation must aspire, but also as a legacy which they are powerless to fulfil, while he treats the dynastic conflicts of the Houses of York and Lancaster as essentially intractable, with each new pretender to the throne – however legitimate his claim – undermined by a host of legal, moral, and pragmatic considerations. It is a central contention of the thesis that it was Shakespeare’s failure satisfactorily to resolve the intractable political conflicts of the first tetralogy which prompted him to confront a similar set of questions in King John, before returning to them yet again in the more highly acclaimed second tetralogy. The thesis concludes by arguing that far from representing a breach with his history plays, the tragedies are continuous with them. So rather than identifying the ‘origins’ of Hamlet either in Shakespeare’s reaction to the fall of Essex or the death of his son, Hammet, in 1596, it is more persuasive to see the play as arising from the debates and problems which were initially addressed in the first tetralogy.

In this thesis, a collective urban sector-consisting, in various different guises, of civic governments, urban merchants, and townspeople-is presented as a vital and distinctive component of later medieval English political society. The dynamics of this urban political sector are reconstructed through the use of a modified version of the 'urban systems' approach found in historical geography and economic history, positing that towns are defined by their evolving relationship with one another. Drawing from the municipal records of twenty-two towns, this thesis charts the composition of the later medieval English 'urban system' and the manner in which urban groups belonging to this 'system' participated in a broader national political sphere over four chronological periods-1413-35, 1435-50, 1450-61, and 1461-71. In 1413-35, the highly authoritative and institutionalised governments of Henry V and the child Henry VI fostered vertical relationships between the Crown and a variety of individual civic governments, leading both national and urban political actors to operate within a shared political culture, but not necessarily encouraging inter-urban political communication. This would change in the periods that followed, as the absence of strong royal authority after 1435 renewed the strength of lateral mercantile networks and facilitated the re-emergence of a semi-autonomous inter-urban political community, which saw little reason to participate in the civil wars of the early 1450s that now seemed divorced from its own interests. In the 1460s, however, the financially extractive policies of Edward IV once again gave civic governments and ordinary townspeople a greater stake in royal government, which was reflected in the high level of urban participation in the dynastic conflicts of 1469-71. The developments occurring in these four phases illustrate both the interdependence of urban and national politics in the later medieval period, and the mutability of their relationship with one another.

No description available.

The entirety of modern academia is founded on some form of historical authentication and interpretation. Historical exploration, in fact, represents the necessary element for the cognitive linking of interdisciplinary learning. At essence academic historiography is first - the product of intrigue - and then its contemporary expression. But though the field of academic history poses the perfect union of science and literary arts, modern instruction has sometimes grappled with finding and striking the optimal balance for effectively teaching historical authentication and its interpretation. Recognition and application of both aspects are essential to the effective demonstration of history as a viable, if not primary choice of high school-aged students for academic career path. The focus of this project relies on the premise that young people find fascination in history as readily as they might music, mathematics, medicine, or any other form of science and art. Using the dramatic Wars of the Roses as a backdrop, Constructing History: Richard III and the Wars of the Roses: A Teaching Unit aims to whet the historical appetite of students, and to instill in them a sense of historical awareness as individuals. Our curriculum provides high school educators with lessons that clearly demonstrate to students the difference between academic historiography and historical narrative while highlighting the imperative for interdisciplinarity. The unit introduces and profiles figures - both likely and unlikely historians - of various academic and public professions from the past and the present. Students will begin to understand the importance of discovering for themselves whether the histories they themselves have either accepted (or rejected) are true. Armed with this knowledge they can then determine how best to reasonably express their conclusions, leading directly to the main focal point of the project wherein students will learn that history is a cultural construct, and that especially now, all of us participate in its construction as both actors and narrators.

No description available.

This diploma thesis is exploring the topic of legitimacy and legality of the royal power in the late English and French Middle Ages. Specifically, it answers the question whether Edward IV and Charles VII were legitimate kings for their respective subjects, based on analysis and comparison of selected contemporaneous English and French sources. This thesis presents different points of view on the royal power and the royal office according to the medieval authors. It describes the often ambiguous and contradictory opinions on this issue as well as provides a deeper look at the traditions and customs surrounding it. This analysis is presented against the historical backdrop of prolonged armed conflicts and political changes in both kingdoms. The differences between the legal and political situation of Charles VII and Edward IV suggest a wide range of possible interpretations. This thesis, based on the critical analysis and comparison of the relevant historical sources, advocates the view supporting the legitimacy of both kings, based on their respective genealogical and legal claims as well as on the support granted by their subjects. Keywords: Charles VII, Edward IV, royal power, legitimacy, treaty of Troyes, Wars of the Roses, Hundred years war