Wars of the Roses 1455-1471 Essay Example for Free

Wars of the Roses 1455-1471 Essay Within the context of the period 1337-1471, to what extent can Henry VI be held primarily responsible for the Wars of the Roses 1455-1471? When Henry VI came to the throne in 1431, people already had high expectations of him. At only 8 years old, he had already broken tradition by becoming the first king to rule over both England and France. However, when the minority council finally permitted Henry VI to rule of his own accord, he seemed to be a hopeless King, making severe mistakes that ultimately contributed to beginning of the Wars of the Roses in the period 1455 to 1471. However, there is some debate amongst historians as to whether Henry VI can be held primarily to blame for causing the Wars of the Roses, or whether other factors such as the over mighty subjects, the feuds between noble, and the actions of Margaret of Anjou were greater contributing factors to the outbreak of war. Henry VI’s personality has been criticised by many historians as being unsuited to the role of king. Contemporary interpretations of Henry are that he was terrible at ruling, as he was â€Å"utterly devoid of wit or spirit† (according to Pope Pius II). Subjects who were condemned for speaking ill of the king in the 1440s and 1450s referred to him as â€Å"a sheep†. Victorian views on Henry VI were that he lacked the qualities required for successful kingship, although at that time he was still praised for being â€Å"a pious, humane and Christian character†. The historian Antonia Fraser concludes that â€Å"these were not the attributes of a king and the truth is that Henry had no real wish to act like one†. This suggests that henry’s personality was overall, entirely ill-suited for the role of kingship. Henry’s chaplain John Blacman (writing during the reign of Henry Tudor), although writing somewhat positively about Henry VI, chooses to avoid mentioning Henry VI’S ability to rule and instead focuses on how religious Henry VI is, describing him as â€Å"chaste and pure from the beginning of his days†, and presenting him as a pious and puritanical king. The fact that Blacman puts emphasis on his pious character rather than his ability to rule, suggests that Henry VI was a poor ruler. Dockray comments â€Å"during the reign of Henry VII, at a time when the king was hoping to secure his predecessor’s canonisation†, so this source cannot be trusted. Robin Neillands concludes that â€Å"The accounts of the King’s goodness are largely based on his devotion to religion, at the expense of more pressing secular matters concerning the government of the realm†. The role of the minority council is also an important factor to consider when assessing whether Henry VI was primarily to blame. Henry V had, on his deathbed, made the fundamental arrangements for his son’s minority; Duke John of Bedford was to take charge in France as Regent (as Henry VI was too young to rule), and pursue the war against the Dauphin Charles-while hanging on to Normandy at all costs and maintaining the alliance with Philip the Good, and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester was to keep a watchful eye on England. In 1431, Henry VI was crowned king but the ministers ruled in his stead. This minority council ruled until Henry was in his mid-twenties, well over the normal ruling age, which suggests that Henry VI could not be trusted to rule the kingdom effectively. Gillingham, however, paints a very positive portrayal of Henry VI’s minority. He concludes that it was â€Å"evidence showing that in fifteenth century England there existed a stable political system, con taining in the council an institutional framework within which tensions could be contained and resolved.† K.B. McFarlane referred to Henry VI as â€Å"a baby who grew up to be an imbecile†, and the length of minority supports this view. Contemporary and Yorkist views on Henry VI were that he was a child-like, idiotic king, and that the council made all the decisions for him. The English Chronicle that was published in the 1460s stated that Henry â€Å"was simple and led by a covetous council† and â€Å"that puppet of a king†. Henry is often criticised for relying too heavily on his council, and continuing to support their decisions. Helen Castor states that â€Å"he was proving to be no more capable of leadership as an adult than he had been as an infant†, supporting the view that he was a childlike king incapable of ruing effectively. However, other historians have suggested that Henry VI did in fact take an active role in government, and can be seen as primarily to blame, rather than his minority council. The historian Wolffe claims that the documentation Henry VI signed is proof of his heavy involvement in government. His own involvement in the war in France led to defeat and humiliation, as he pursued his own French policy and made a secret deal with Charles VII to surrender Maine and Anjou, meaning that they lost all of France apart from Calais. By doing this, he had removed two key parts of the empire, making it inevitable for it to crumble. At this point, Henry VI did seem to act of his own accord, as the fact that he made the deal a secret suggest that he knew that many people would disapprove of his actions. All this suggests that Henry was fully in charge of the government and its decisions, and can consequently be blamed for the mistakes made during that time. Another example of Henry playing an active role in ruling is the increase in elevations to the peerage under Henry VI’s rule. During the first thirty six years of the Lancastrian dynasty, only nine elevations were made to the peerage. However, twenty five years later (during Henry’s reign), there were twenty five elevations to the peerage. This massive increase in elevations to the peerage made during Henry’s reign seems to indicate that Henry was in fact playing an active role in ruling. Another reason why Henry VI could be seen as primarily responsible is because his mental collapse during the period 1453-54 left the government unattended, allowing violence to flare up with no authority to deal with it. According to the historian Robin Neillands, it â€Å"flung the whole responsibility for the management of the realm entirely on the Royal Council†, and as a result â€Å"the fragile rule of law in England fell apart†. The quarrel between the Nevilles and the Percies soon escalated into violence in August 1453, despite measures that the Royal Council put in place in a failed attempt to end their quarrelling. However, it is debatable as to whether or not that Henry’s illness made any fundamental change to these events, as he’d already proved himself as incapable of solving these disputes even before his mental collapse. It also led to more conflict between Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York and Somerset. Another key factor to consider is the role of Margaret of Anjou. Henry VI married Margaret, the niece of Charles VII in 1455, when she was fifteen years of age and had no dowry. Some historians have suggested that Margaret was to blame for convincing the king to surrender Maine and Anjou in order to please her, and referred to her as â€Å"the queen who had brought nothing and taken much away†-although as Gillingham points out â€Å"it is unlikely that a fifteen year old girl could wield so much influence within a few months of her arrival at a strange court where most people spoke a language she was yet to learn†. Margaret of Anjou played a pivotal role in the Wars of the Roses, most notably after February 1456, when York’s second protectorate ended, as Margaret managed to establish a power base in the northwest, and also persuade the king to come to Chester, turning the political tide against York. She had successfully stepped into the vacuum left by Henry VI, and continued to play a dominant role in court, creating the Attainment Bill in 1459 to show the extent of her control. Overall, the balance of evidence seems to suggest that Henry was a weak ruler and ill-suited to the role of medieval kingship. He clearly lacked the qualities needed to rule effectively, and there was no clear leadership in any key sphere of government due to Henry’s long absences from power- the minority council ruled in his stead until he was in his mid-twenties, and reappeared when he suffered his mental collapse in the 1450s, and there were others ruling for him. He also failed to stop the feud between York and Somerset before it escalated into violence. He also neglected to stop the quarrels between other nobles. The balance of evidence also seems to point towards the interpretation of Henry VI being far too easily led and manipulated. Helen Castor even goes on to say that he â€Å"did little more than smile and agree to every suggestion his advisers made†. While Jack Cade’s rebellion showed the discontent of the people at that time, the fact that the rebellion was aimed solely against Henry VI’s advisors rather than Henry himself is a clear indicator of how easily manipulated he was, as his own people believed that his advisors were at fault. According to Antonia Fraser, the main demand from the rebels was the punishment of â€Å"the false progeny and affinity of the Duke of Suffolk† and a later chronicler said he â€Å"was simple and led by a covetous counsel†. However, none of this means that Henry VI should be held any less accountable, as he chose the government that was now in place. However, there are other factors that suggest that he wasn’t entirely to blame for the Wars of the Roses. Many historians have identified the family tree of Edward III as a significant factor in causing the wars of the roses for several reasons. One main reason why it could be seen as a significant factor is because it started the debate as to who had the stronger claim to the throne, the house of Lancaster, or the house of York. When Edward II died in 1377, Richard II succeeded him (as Edward the black prince had predeceased his father). However, as she was too young to rule, John of Gaunt ruled in his stead until Richard II turned 20. Richard II banished Gaunt’s heir, Henry Bolingbroke, and Thomas Mobray when they had a quarrel, but made the fatal mistake of seizing all of the wealth of the house of Lancaster. This caused Henry Bolingbroke to return to reclaim his wealth, ultimately ending in Bolingbroke taking the throne of England as Henry IV. By doing so, he ignored the claims of the Mortimer family, which followed back through a woman named Philippa, the daughter of Lionel of Clarence (the second son of Edward iii), and these claims eventually passed down to Richard, duke of York. The Yorkist line seemed to have the stronger claim to the throne than the Lancastrian line, as Richard, earl of Cambridge’s marriage with Anne Mortimer connected his line with the Mortimer line, arguably putting him ahead of the Lancastrians in the line of succession. The debate was that Anne Mortimer was a woman, making Richard Plantagenet’s claim through a female line, so the Lancastrian claim was considered stronger, and also the Yorkist claim was not pursued after 1415, as his father, Richard, earl of Cambridge had been beheaded for treason. This chain of events helped to start off the Wars of the Roses, as it was Richard Plantagenet who founded the house of York. Yet while Edward III’S family tree provided the possibility for war, there are arguably more significant factors. Edward III’s complicated family tree was a factor that drove Richard of Cambridge to attempting to place his brother-in-law, Edmund Mortimer, on the throne, as he believed that Edmund Mortimer had the stronger claim. As it was his son, Richard Plantagenet, who founded the house of York, it suggests that the family tree helped to cause the feud between the house of Lancaster, and the house of York, effectively starting the Wars of the Roses. Henry IV’s usurpation of Richard II in 1399 has been regarded by several historians as the root cause of the Wars of the Roses. In particular, the historian A.L .Rouse stated that â€Å"It all began with a revolution. The revolution of 1399.†When Henry Bolingbroke overthrew Richard II and took the throne, he â€Å"struck at the very foundations of kingship†. During that period, it was believed that the king was always chosen by God. Therefore, it was considered dreadful to overthrow a king, and Shakespeare later described the Wars of the Roses as a form of divine retribution, as punishment for the sins that their predecessors committed. This idea was used as propaganda, and the usurpation was viewed as so shocking that it created the precedent for overthrowing a sacredly anointed king. It also put forward the idea that the divinity of kingship could be passed down to someone else of a stronger bloodline, and Henry IV used this as an excuse by claiming that his ancestor was the eldest son of Henry III. However, there were other contenders to the throne who had a stronger claim than Henry Bolingbroke, and as there was much dispute in later years about who had a stronger claim to the throne, it could be argued that the cause of all these disputes originated. The usurpation of Richard II was also significant because it meant that any person of royal blood who had raised an army, and who had argued with the king could become a contender for the throne, as they could simply overthrow the king and take the crown for themselves. This meant that the throne was never going to be safe from anyone who wished to take it. This made it almost inevitable for war to break out, as any of the following rulers’ claims to the throne could be questioned, and it created political uncertainty and instability due to the fact that the Lancastrian dynasty was based on usurpation. Despite Henry Bolingbroke’s excuse that Richard II had been unfit to rule, it still caused a dispute about whether the usurpation of the throne could really be excused. However, this was not a problem during the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V, and the debate was only brought about when Henry VI’s failings became apparent- had there been a strong, capable ruler on the throne, this debate would not have been reopened. â€Å"Bastard Feudalism† also played a significant role in the Wars of the Roses. The phrase was coined by the historian Charles Plummer. K.B. McFarlane argues that the whole system of bastard feudalism did in fact have the potential to provide stability, suggesting that its contribution to the disorder and instability of that period was merely a reflection of Henry VI’s ineffective rule. This serves to reinforce the argument that it was Henry VI’s inability to rule that created the problems which arose and ultimately culminated in the outbreak of war. Certainly, had a strong king, capable of maintaining control, been placed on the throne, then the system of â€Å"bastard feudalism† would not have proved an issue. It could also be argued that the â€Å"over-mighty subjects such as York and Warwick were to blame for causing the Wars of the Roses. Some historians have argued that Henry VI’s mistrust of York was not justified, as he had legitimate grievances. He had been the king’s lieutenant in France but was replaced by Somerset who was given a larger army. Somerset was even paid  £2 5,000 for troops while York was given nothing and instead told to wait. Somerset’s younger brother was also made lieutenant of France and York was humiliated as lieutenant of Ireland. The government also owed York  £38,666 ( £12,666 of this York agreed to forgo), but they still failed to pay his wages, and even owed him a further  £10,000 due to his hereditary pension. Because of the government’s refusal to pay York the money he was owed, his debt increased to the extent that he was forced to consider selling some of his manors, as well as endanger relationships with his friends by borrowing heavily from them. York also received  £21,000 worth of â€Å"bad tallies†-which were the crown’s method of discharging its debts by handing out tallies on some regular source of income, and receiving the tallies did not guarantee proper payment. Many historians agree that York deserved fairer treatment than this- he had been active in the king’s service abroad and was the crown’s largest single creditor after loaning them  £26,000. The historian Keith Dockray claims that he â€Å"could reasonably expect a prominent role in Henry VI’s council and even, perhaps, formal recognition as the king’s heir†. Many pro-Yorkist chroniclers were of the belief that he was a good person who was being treated very poorly by the â€Å"corrupt clique surrounding the king†(Dockray). The English Chronicle states that â€Å"common people hated Somerset but loved York because he loved the commons and [reserved the common profit of this land†. According to K.B. Mcfarlane, some of the blame can still be attributed to the king, because â€Å"only an under-mighty ruler had anything to fear from over-mighty subjects†. This links back to the key problem underlying all these factors-Henry VI was a poor ruler, and so the stability of the government depended on his ability to assert authority and make good decisions. The development of bastard feudalism, caused by the growth of affinities, also helped to cause instability between the king and his magnates, as it enabled the magnates to subvert the wishes of the crown and take the law into their own hands. According to Neillands, the magnates â€Å"began to maintain bodies of soldiers, even in peacetime, and this â€Å"maintenance† was not illegal â€Å"unless the lord attempted to support his retainer in outlawry or by influencing the court of law†. As a result, violence became widespread due to Henry VI’s inability to maintain control of the system. Gillingham, however, paints a very positive portrayal of Henry VI’s minority. He concludes that it was â€Å"evidence showing that in fifteenth century England there existed a stable political system, containing in the council an institutional framework within which tensions could be contained and resolved.† However, Richard Plantagenet’s contemporaries tended to be more critical when assessing whether he deserved this treatment. The historian J.R. Lander referred to him as â€Å"an ambitious, opportunist and self-interested magnate who failed to win much committed support from his peers†. Many of York’s contemporary critics believed that he was far more motivated by self-interest rather than concern for public good, and some even called him a traitor. This is evident in a Chancery memorandum in 1456 that claimed that all disturbances since Cade’s rebellion had been â€Å"at the will of the Duke of York, descended from the Mortimers’. The fact that he is not only blamed for the disturbances after Cade’s rebellion, but there is also an accusatory remark about his lineage, clearly suggests that he had not won the support of his peers. The Coventry Parliament in 1459 even wrote a catalogue of his alleged treacheries, and the tract Somnium Vigilantes criticised his behaviour as being â€Å"subversive to the commonwealth†. The events in 1452 also support this view; York started a campaign to remove Somerset from power which failed, so he had to resort to an armed force. He also confronted the king at Blackheath with armed retainers, with a view to finally gaining his deserved position beside the king. According to the historian J.R. Lander, one contemporary writer claims that he â€Å"surrendered on the promise that Somerset would be arrested†. However, this failed, as little support from nobles and the common people led to his humiliation. These events suggest that York was indeed ambitious and self-interested with little support. When York returned from Ireland in 1450, many of the king’s servants became suspicious. Despite returning because he was worried about the return of Somerset from France, the king’s servants assumed he was there to overthrow the king due to rumours spread about during that time. This suggests that he certainly did not have the approval of the public, as they were prepared to believe in rumours rather than trusting in his character. Overall, the balance of evidence seems to suggest that Henry VI was primarily responsible for the Wars of the Roses. Henry VI’s incompetence allowed rebellion to take place, and his inability to rule effectively meant that the government was filled with over-mighty subjects all vying for power. He also worsened the disputes between the nobles and increased tensions between them, creating the perfect conditions for war to take place. Although he cannot be blamed substantially for the defeat in France, he did play a role in events by surrendering Maine and Anjou. The usurpation in 1399 also heightened all of these factors, as it encouraged the belief that God was against his rule. None of the key factors responsible for the Wars of the Roses would have been as influential on events if Henry VI had been the dominant, assertive ruler everyone needed him to be. Bibliography: The Wars of the Roses by John Gillingham The Wars of the Roses by Robin Neillands The Wars of the Roses by Antonia Fraser The Wars of the Roses by J.R.Lander Blood and Roses by Helen Castor Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses by A.L .Rowse Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship by John Watts

Henry VIIIs Reformation Essay -- Papers

Henry VIII's Reformation In 1529 Henry VIII started to reform the Catholic Church in England, however there are different opinions as to why he began these controversial changes. The orthodox view concurs that there was a vast anti-clerical feeling in 16th century England; the corrupt church was unpopular with the masses. However the revisionist view claims that the reformation was actually due to politics. Henry needed a male heir and therefore needed a divorce. The needs and wants of the masses were not taken into consideration. In this essay I am going to look at England pre-reformation and reach my own opinion of whether or not England was actually in need of a reformation in 1529. There were lots of anti-catholic movements going on at the time such as the Lutheran movement and also Lollardry. This suggests that people were growing tired with the Catholic Church and therefore looking towards other religions. The Lollards were an active group based in England. Lollardy appealed to the lower and middle classes and its idea's closely matched those of Luther. They denied the existence of purgatory, rejected the pope and spoke out against war. It wished to see a reduction in church wealth and the bible translated into English. They encouraged new ideas and criticism of the church. However it is difficult to interpret just how much Lollardry actually influenced the reformation. It undoubtedly helped to weaken the church and open peoples eyes to new ideas, yet it was also relatively small scale and wouldn't have affected many people. However there was generally an anti-clerical feeling amongst people. The clergy of that time a... ...ay or another, none of the were indicating that the church needed to go through a full scale reformation but rather that the church needed to reform itself, they were calling for a reformation from within the church, they wanted the clergy to improve themselves. The Catholic Church in England deniably did have some faults, but generally people were content and satisfied with it. It wasn't the institution in decline as it is often portrayed but actually just as popular as it had always been. People were happy with what they knew and therefore didn't like the idea of a new church and religion, which is why there were protests after the reformation. Henry VIII and his parliament undoubtedly exaggerated these faults in order to reform the church for their own political needs, rather than the needs of the ordinary people. Henry VIII's Reformation Essay -- Papers Henry VIII's Reformation In 1529 Henry VIII started to reform the Catholic Church in England, however there are different opinions as to why he began these controversial changes. The orthodox view concurs that there was a vast anti-clerical feeling in 16th century England; the corrupt church was unpopular with the masses. However the revisionist view claims that the reformation was actually due to politics. Henry needed a male heir and therefore needed a divorce. The needs and wants of the masses were not taken into consideration. In this essay I am going to look at England pre-reformation and reach my own opinion of whether or not England was actually in need of a reformation in 1529. There were lots of anti-catholic movements going on at the time such as the Lutheran movement and also Lollardry. This suggests that people were growing tired with the Catholic Church and therefore looking towards other religions. The Lollards were an active group based in England. Lollardy appealed to the lower and middle classes and its idea's closely matched those of Luther. They denied the existence of purgatory, rejected the pope and spoke out against war. It wished to see a reduction in church wealth and the bible translated into English. They encouraged new ideas and criticism of the church. However it is difficult to interpret just how much Lollardry actually influenced the reformation. It undoubtedly helped to weaken the church and open peoples eyes to new ideas, yet it was also relatively small scale and wouldn't have affected many people. However there was generally an anti-clerical feeling amongst people. The clergy of that time a... ...ay or another, none of the were indicating that the church needed to go through a full scale reformation but rather that the church needed to reform itself, they were calling for a reformation from within the church, they wanted the clergy to improve themselves. The Catholic Church in England deniably did have some faults, but generally people were content and satisfied with it. It wasn't the institution in decline as it is often portrayed but actually just as popular as it had always been. People were happy with what they knew and therefore didn't like the idea of a new church and religion, which is why there were protests after the reformation. Henry VIII and his parliament undoubtedly exaggerated these faults in order to reform the church for their own political needs, rather than the needs of the ordinary people.

Determinism vs Free Will Essay

Abstract In this essay I will define determinism, I will also define free will. I will answer question in a dialogue with and imaginary Socrates. In my dialogue I will give clear and conclusive answers and I will use the socratic method. I will also provide examples when possible, or needed. Determinism vs Free Will Socrates: What is the definition of determinism? April: Determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causation. Everything that happens is the only possible thing that could happen (Baumeister,2009). Socrates: What is the definition of free will? April: Free Will is the ability to freely choose one of several possibile alternatives, to make decisions the outcome of which is and cannot be known in advance (Voss,2007). Socrates: Do you agree that every event has an explanatory cause? April: Yes I do, Everything happens for a reason. Socrates: How do you define event? April: I would define even as something that happens. For example like a birth or a wedding. (Solomon,2010) Socrates: How do you define explanatory cause? April: An explanatory cause is the assumption that every event in the universe including our own actions, can be explained and understood. (Solomon,2010) Socrates: Do you agree that every human choice or event has an explanatory cause? April: Yes I absolutely agree, because every human choice and action has an explanatory cause. (Solomon,2010) Socrates: How do you define human choice? April: Human choice is the choice of humans to make a decision that is free of outside influences, because we (people) are the only ones responsible for the decisions we make every day. Socrates: How do you define human event? April: Human events are the things (events) that happens to human beings in their life, like getting married, having children, going to college, and even death. Socrates: Are they different? April: Yes, I think human choice and human event are different, because human choice is the decision you make, and human event is what will happen from your decision. For example you go on a date with this guy (human choice) and then you two fall in love and get married (human event). Socrates: Do you agree that to have an explanatory cause is to not be free? April: No, because that would mean that no human choice or action would be free and as a reaction to that there would be no choices or actions. (Solomon,2010) Socrates: How do you define free? April: Freedom means that we can deliberate about what to do, it means that the future seems â€Å"opened†, it also entails that we should be praised and blamed for our actions, since we have a choice. (Cuddy,2008) Socrates: Do you think that free will and determinism can coexist in anyway? April: Yes, I believe that free will and determinism can coexist, because even though we have free will and can do what we want, when we want, at the same time our freedom has rules (laws) that are there to guide us and let us know what is right and wrong. (Sturman,2013) Socrates: Is it possible to have external determinism and internal free will? April: Well, I think that maybe it is possible to have external determinism, but not possible to have internal free will, because no such thing as internal or external free will exist, however though external determinism does exist and it refers to the external influences that are out of our control. For example say that a successful and rich movie star has a child, that child will grow up and be a rich and successful movie star also. (Solomon,2010). In conclusion free will and determinism is something that will always be questioned by different people for years to come, but for now here is my beliefs in this dialogue with an imaginary Socrates. I defined determinism and free will and I also answered many questions from Socrates, and inconclusively yes determinism and free will can coexist and i have realized we are not complately free because we have rules (laws) to follow and abide by. For the most part we are the people we are because of determinism and free will. References Baumeister, Ray (2009). Cultural Animal. How we find Meaning in Life. Retrieved from https://www. psychologytoday. com Cuddy, Luke (2008). Determinism vs Freewill. Retrieved from https://www. neo-philosophy. com Solomon, R. C. , Higgins, K. M. (2010). The Big Questions. A Short Introduction to Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www. coursesmart. com Sturman, Henry. (2013). Freewill and Determinism. Retrieved from https://www. henrysturman. com/articles/freewill. html Voss, Peter. (2007). The Nature of Freewill. Retrieved from https://www.. optimal. org/peter/freewill. html.

John Lockes Philosophy Essay - 724 Words

John Locke was born in 1632. He earned his bachelor’s Degree in 1656 and a masters degree in 1658. In 1690 Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding appeared. From this came Tabula rasa. This then laid the foundation for environmentalism. Locke was an English philosopher who was regarded as one of the â€Å"most influential of enlightenment thinkers† and â€Å"important to social contract social† (Wikipedia). Locke died in 1704 never being married or having children. His theories are a part of what we practice today. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is a set of four books and within this is â€Å"extremely long and detailed theory of knowledge starting from the very basics and building up.† (SparkNotes Editors, n.d.) In these four books†¦show more content†¦One of my favorite quotes by Locke goes â€Å"No mans knowledge here can go beyond his experience.† I agree with this quote. Because of Locke’s theory of the minds knowledge the term environmentalism came about. Environmentalism is the belief that the environment will determine what a child becomes. This is something I agree with. As we look at all the different environments we have grown up in and the environments our children are growing up in they are very different. For some these environments are drastically different. There are many diverse families with single parent home, same sex parents, grandparents raising children, and so many other things that can influence the environment a child is growing up in. because of these things some children are not ready for kindergarten when they should be and are lacking the skills needed to move on. These have become what is known as â€Å"disadvantaged† children/schools. As an example I grew up in a pretty nice neighborhood with middle class families my environment was on my side and I thrived in school. Now on the other side of the tracks is an area that is of poverty and are struggling to get by those are the areas where there are high er numbers of high school drop outs and crime rates because they did not have the environment to show them how to act and behave in society. Their environment gave them a lack of knowledge they did not have at birth. Then there are those who have facedShow MoreRelatedJohn Lockes Political Philosophy 752 Words   |  3 Pages John Locke is one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern era. He is a strong-minded empiricist whom expresses radical views about law and order. Locke is a fascinating figure in the history of law and order whose excellence of elucidation and depth of intellectual activity remains extremely influential. His mature political philosophy leant support to the British Whig party and its principles, to the Age of Enlightenment, and to the development of the separation of the StateRead MoreAge Of Enlightenment755 Words   |  4 Pagesintellectual thinkers, such as John Locke, which helped shape and influence modern government and politics. John Locke is recognized as the father of classical liberalism, introducing the Two Treatises of Government, Social Contract, and private property, which formed the basis for the constitutions in westernized democratic powers such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The Two Treatises of Government became the most influential pieces of work that John Locke had created during theRead More John Locke Essay1215 Words   |  5 PagesJohn Locke John Locke is considered to be England’s most prominent philosopher. He was born August 29, 1632 in a small town of Somerset, which is south of Bristol, England. Locke was the oldest of three children. His mother died when he was 22 years old and Locke spoke of her very well. Locke’s father was a Puritan attorney and clerk to a justice of the peace in the town where Locke was born. He was very strict with his son when he was younger. which Locke later believed that parents shouldRead MoreThe Three Political Philosophy Quotes1177 Words   |  5 Pagestypes were most influenced by these 3 philosophers. They each have their outstanding quotes to support and present their ideas. The three political philosophy quotes by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Karl Marx each is the best example for â€Å"absolutism†, â€Å"enlightenment and natural rights† and â€Å"communism†. In addition, the 3 different types of philosophy each applies to distinct type of governments. Thomas Hobbes believes in one common power which relates to monarchy. In Hobbes’s quote, Hobbes uses theRead MoreJohn Locke : Philosophies And Contributions Essay1414 Words   |  6 Pagestaken their own philosophies of education and changed the way we look at learning. Whether it is educating the children of today or bringing religion into the stream, our curriculum is always changing with their ideas in mind. John Locke and Erasmus provide extremely different philosophies when it comes to the curriculum of education although they have both impacted the way we teach today dramatically. Although there were a lot of child educators who were strong in what they did, John Locke is mostRead MoreBusiness Ethics: John Locke Essay1696 Words   |  7 PagesBusiness Ethics: John Locke Business Ethics Business ethics is defined as â€Å"a specialized study of moral right and wrong that focusses on moral standards as they apply to business institutions, organizations, and behavior† (Velasquez, 2014, p.15). Business ethics is the study of moral standards that focusses primarily on how these standards may apply to social systems and/or organizations. For this paper I will be focusing on one of the great minds of business ethics, John Locke, his ideas andRead MoreHow John Locke Inspired Maria Montessori1459 Words   |  6 PagesJOHN LOCKE Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. – John Locke Childhood John Locke was born on August 29, 1632, in Wrington, a village in the English country of Somerset. He was baptized the same day. Soon after his birth, the family moved to the market town of Pensford, about seven miles south of Bristol, where Locke grew up in an old fashioned stone farmhouse . His father was a county lawyer to the Justices of the Peace and his motherRead MoreJohn Locke’s Theory of Personal Identity Essay1692 Words   |  7 PagesJohn Locke (1632-1704) said ‘To find wherein personal identity consists, we must consider what person stands for †¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Locke, in set book, p. 275). Therefore, to recapitulate Locke’s philosophy on personal identity it is necessary to clarify how he inimitably used the term ‘person’ and consequently other words, such as ‘substance’ and ‘man’, which he utilized to form his philosophical ideas. Furthermore, his work on personal identity inspired debate amongst many subsequent philosophers and motivatedRead MoreAnalysis Of John Locke s The Of The Golden Era Essay1393 Words   |  6 Pagesof a phenomenal thinker and leader, and so he is regarded as the Emperor of the â€Å"Golden Era†. Leonardo da Vinci opened the door to the Renaissance and William Shakes peare treated us to the best writings and plays in the English language. Likewise, John Locke is a man who accomplished what many men could not. He single handedly developed a political system that had a focus on liberty, his work would help influence many men from both sides of the Atlantic. Aside from being a brilliant political theoristRead MoreBiography of John Locke876 Words   |  4 PagesJohn Locke was a British born philosopher, physician, and writer that played a significant role in the framework of The United States. He was born in Wrington, England on August 29th, 1632. A father, also named John, who was a country lawyer, and his mother Anges Keene, raised Locke. Both his parents were Puritans, which influenced his later work immensely (John Locke). Locke’s parents sent him to the famous Westminister School in London where he was led by Alexander Popham, a member of Parliament