.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
The Kings Great Matter Essay Example for Free
The Kings Great Matter Essay The Spanish-English marriage alliance of Catherine of Aragon and Prince Arthur was arranged when the children were very young. Catherine traveled to England only to face tragedy when her young husband, Arthur died in 1502. Henry VII wanted to marry Catherine to his younger son, who would be, Henry VIII so that he did not lose the dowry money from Catherines parents and to secure some other agreements between the two countries. In the Catholic Church, it was forbidden to marry the wife of a deceased brother. A papal dispensation was required for the marriage. It was easily obtained from Pope Julius II. Henry VII died before the marriage took place but Henry VIII immediately married Catherine once he became King. Many people involved questioned the validity of this dispensation. Catherines mother, Isabella did not like the idea of her daughter being remarried and requiring a document from the Pope to have it done. But, once Henry VII died and Henry VIII proceeded with the marriage, no one mentioned the dispensation or the validity of it until Henry decided that he needed a grounds for divorce. Under the circumstances of Henry not wanting to be with his wife anymore, he proposed many doctrines that had been insignificant until then. Henry and Catherine actually had a fairly good marriage. The biggest problem in the marriage was lack of ability to produce a male heir. This was very important to Henry. They tried several times but were not successful. The couple did have one child that lived but, it was a girl named Mary. After many miscarriages and years of disappointment, Catherine began to get much older and lose much of her attractiveness. Henry not only began to lose interest in his wife, but he also began to worry about not having a son to succeed him on the throne. This was when the Kings great matter began. Throughout this time period, Cardinal Wolsey, an advisor to Henry and very powerful in the Catholic Church, moved closer and closer to Henry. As the relationship progressed Henry became more distant to Catherine. Wolsey spied on Catherine and she thought he acted against her always. She began to believe that Wolsey had always hated her and possibly that she had always hated him also. She held him responsible for the promotion of Henrys bastard son, for tempting the King of France to break the word agreed at Madrid and plunging Europe into war, for ruining the alliance between the two countries, and for seducing the pope and the Italian states. She also held Wolsey responsible for Henrys irritability. It isnt surprising that Catherine also blamed Wolsey for Henry wanting to divorce her. But, Catherine was not the only one with this idea. The ambassador, the emperor, Reginald Pole, Catholic controversialists, and Catholic writers ever since have agreed that Wolsey was probably the instigator. Catherines thought that Wolsey had put the ideas of divorce into Henrys head was very reasonable. She believed that Wolsey thought this was the best way to safeguard his pro-French policy by removing Catherine and replacing her with a French princess. Wolsey was serious about his French alliance and did hope to arrange a French marriage. He also feared Catherine. He knew that he needed to get rid of her so that he get closer to the king and help him handle his affairs. Most of the time, Cardinal Wolsey was looking out to better himself and his policies. Catherine was wrong about a few things though. She did not blame Henry for any of this. She felt he had been manipulated and took up for him every chance she had. She was wrong about Henry. He was not the innocent person she thought he was. Protestant writers have told the story according to Henry, that his conscience had separated him from Catherine. But, still many have said that it was simply out of desire for another woman. Henrys want for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon has also been attributed to his health. During the years 1527 -28, it was obvious that his health was on the decline. In 1524, he suffered from a head injury while jousting with the Duke of Suffolk. This injury is said to have caused him many severe headaches and possibly an alteration in behavior and character. His character began to change slowly after this. He went from a happy leader, fairly good husband and interested in his people to an irritable, suspicious, and selfish king. In the same year he also suffered from an ulcer in his leg which contributed to his irritability and impatience. Someone told Henry that he had been living in sin with his brothers wife. The name of who told him this was never released. Henrys arguments of his marriage to Catherine being invalid consisted of two sections. The first section argued that the union of a man and the wife of his brother was contrary to the law of God and that any papal dispensation pretending to allow it was worthless. The second section argued that the particular dispensation granted by Pope Julius II, which he had married Catherine under, was invalid. His first argument contained several parts. The first part was two texts in Leviticus. Leviticus 18:16 reads ‘Thou shall not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife: it is thy brothers nakedness and Leviticus 20:21 reads ‘If a man shall take his brothers wife, it is an impurity: he hath uncovered his brothers nakedness; they shall be childless. Henry and his advisors could not just use these scriptures. They advisors had to prove that they were true under all circumstances and were out of reach of all papal authority. However, the texts from Leviticus that Henry used were contradicted by a text from Deuteronomy. This text read: ‘When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another, but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother. In order for Henrys arguments to succeed he had to somehow get rid of this text from Deuteronomy. It was attacked in many ways. Some argued that the text from Deuteronomy was a ceremonial or respective interpretation of the law that was allowed to the Jews but, like circumcision, was dissolved by the coming of Christ. Others argued that this text was only permissible under certain rare conditions, none of which was present in Henrys case. Henry, Wolsey, and a few other advisors had been meeting privately to discuss how the proceedings of the divorce should take place. These secret meetings were how the whole process came to be known as the kings great matter. The plan was not to involve Rome at all. Cardinal Wolsey and Warham were going to hold a secret court in England. They were going to call Henry in, charging him with living in sin with his dead brothers wife. Henry would plead guilty and the private court would then sentence him and the marriage to nullity. But, they ran into a problem. Catherine found out what the plan was. Her nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. He had much power in Rome and over the papacy. She wrote letters and sent them to Charles for help. In her letters, she told him the entire story and appealed the case of the divorce to Rome. In 1527, Wolsey was in a hurry to get to France. He was trying to beat Catherines letters to Charles for help. He knew that if Charles heard the story he would threaten Pope Clement VII so that he would not dare dissolve the marriage. However, Wolsey did have an alternative plan. It is a good thing he did because he did not beat her letters to Charles. In June 1527, Charles troops attacked Rome and put the Pope up as prisoner. Wolsey went to France and signed the Treaty of Amiens. This protested that no action of the Pope would be valid while he was under duress and proposed that Wolsey, himself, preside over the cardinals in this time of trouble. Wolsey was afraid that Charles would provoke the Pope to do something while under imprisonment. Wolseys next plan was to make comments to Henrys ambassador with Charles that there was a rumor going around in England about the divorce between the king and queen and that there was some questions from the French concerning the validity of marriage and the papal dispensation for the marriage. He also said that the queen had heard of the rumors and was very upset. He did to place doubts in Charles mind about what Catherine had told him. Henry and his most trusted advisor, Cardinal Wolsey, began to fall away from each other a bit. Henry wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. She hated Wolsey and he did not want them married because he wanted Henry to marry a French princess to benefit himself. They began going separate ways in trying to achieve this divorce. While Wolsey tried to make peace in France and to organize a way to rescue the pope from Charles power, Henry went behind his back and had a document drawn up by his secretary, William Knight, that would manipulate the pope. Henry was going to take the document to the Pope himself to get him to sign it. He thought that the pope would appreciate a more personal approach. The pope did have a history of giving people divorces, so Henry really did not think he would have a problem either. He probably would not have had if it was not for Charles V. Henrys sister, the Queen of Scotland, had no problem getting a divorce from the pope after she had been having an affair with a married man. Henry IV of Castile was allowed by the pope to take another wife to bear him children because his first wife could not. In 1498, Pope Alexander VI allowed the King of France to have a divorce so that he could marry the ruler of Brittany. Both of Henrys sister Marys husbands had received divorces from the pope. The document that Henry had written by his secretary contained many ideas that the Pope would agree with but in-between-the-lines he added the dissolution of the marriage between him and Catherine. Wolsey found out about Henrys ideas but did not do anything because he knew that the papacy would not fall for it. Wolsey wanted to get a Decretal Commission signed. This document would say that if he proved certain things concerning the marital dispensation then he could declare the marriage null and void. This case contained four things. The first was, the dispensation had been obtained under false pretenses because it was said Henry asked for it, when he didnt even know what it was and was only twelve years old. The second was,it stated that it was issued to prevent war between England and Spain but at that time there had been no problems between the two countries. The third was, the dispensation had been granted by Pope Julius II out of his gratitude for two great leaders, Henry VII and Isabella of Castile but they were both dead before the marriage even took place so the validity of the document did not really exist. The fourth was, at the age of fourteen, Henry had protested against the marriage and no one paid any attention to him. Pope made changes in the document Henry sent. This angered Henry because he thought the Pope was being provoked so, he sent troops to protect the Pope and free him from the Emperor. The Pope finally issued a decretal commission that the case could be tried in England. It was sent by Cardinal Campeggio who had been given strict orders not to actually go through with it. Following orders, he caused many delays. During this time, Cardinal Campeggio, along with Cardinal Wolsey mentioned to Henry that maybe Catherine would enter a religious house to spend the rest of her days in peace. If she agreed to this then the divorce proceedings could have been cancelled. Henry liked this idea so he sent Wolsey and Campeggio to talk to her about it. Catherine listened respectively to the cardinals but told them that she would not agree to do that. The brief of the marital dispensation issued by Pope Julius II was brought up from Spain which caused some added problems and delays. On June 15, 1529 the legatine court opened at Blackfriars in London. Henry and Catherine were both called to appear. When Catherine was called into court, she kneeled at Henrys feet and begged of him to have mercy on her. She pleaded with him on how she had been a wonderful wife to him and she did not understand his reasoning to get rid of her as his wife. She meant the things she said to him but she also wanted to show the court that she did not agree with what Henry was trying to accomplish. The legatine court in London was not successful and the proceedings were also called back to Rome. However, the court in Rome was not successful either. No matter how many things that Henry tried to turn around and justify to prove his argument, they did not work. Eventually, Henry went ahead and married Anne Boelyn according to his own opinion without the consent of the pope. Of course, this did not make things any brighter with the Pope or the church heads. On August 8, 1533 Pope Clement VII issued a bull commanding Henry to restore Catherine as his ife and put away Anne in ten days or he would suffer excommunication. If he didnt comply, then the support of Charles V, all other Christian princes, and Henrys own subjects would be called upon to carry out the terms of the bull by force of arms. After this, Henry seperated from the Catholic Church, because it would not allow the divorce, and formed his own church in which he was the head of it. This way he could do whatever he wanted. Henrys great matter had turned into a matter that affected the entire country of England and probably all of Europe.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Empirical Formula of Magnesium Oxide :: essays research papers
Empirical Formula of Magnesium Oxide Date: Aim: The aim of this experiment was to determine the empirical formula of magnesium oxide. Equipment:  ·Ã‚     Balance  ·Ã‚     Crucible and lid  ·Ã‚     Bunsen burner  ·Ã‚     Magnesium ribbon (0.2g)  ·Ã‚     Steel wool  ·Ã‚     Crucible tongs  ·Ã‚     Pipe clay triangle  ·Ã‚     Tripod Procedure: 1.     Obtain a clean, dry crucible and lid, then heat them for approximately 5 minutes over a Bunsen burner 2.     Clean the surface of a 20 cm strip of magnesium ribbon using steel wool 3.     Coil the magnesium ribbon, so that it fits into the crucible 4.     Weigh crucible and lid on a balance, and record the mass 5.     Place magnesium ribbon into crucible, replace the lid and weigh once more 6.     Heat the crucible and its content with the lid off until the magnesium begins to glow 7.     Replace the lid and heat the crucible strongly 8.     Continue to heat the crucible, occasionally lifting the lid with tongs to provide oxygen for the reaction 9.     When all magnesium has reacted, remove the lid and heat strongly for 5 minutes 10.     Replace crucible lid and allow to cool 11.     Reweigh the crucible with its contents and lid Observations: Once the magnesium was in the crucible and was being heated by the Bunsen burner, it glowed for a brief time. It then caught fire before the lid was placed on top. When it came into contact with the oxygen, the magnesium started glowing extremely bright, and intensely white. The glow became orange after some time. The magnesium ribbon then turned white. Results: Mass of crucible and lid                              29.9 g Mass of crucible, lid and magnesium                         30.1 g Mass of magnesium                                   0.2 g Mass of crucible, lid and magnesium oxide                    30.3 g Mass of magnesium oxide                              0.4 g Mass of oxygen combined with magnesium                     0.2 g Questions: 1. a) The mass of magnesium which reacted was 0.2 grams. b) The mass of oxygen that combined with the magnesium was 0.2 g. 2. What is the empirical formula of magnesium oxide? Mg0.2 g0.224.310.0080.0081=2     O0.2 g0.2160.01250.0081.56 =3 Thus the empirical formula of Magnesium Oxide is Mg O . 3. Why are the crucible and lid heated at the beginning of the experiment before being weighed? The crucible and lid are heated at the beginning of the experiment before being weighed so that any moisture in the crucible is burned away. Moisture is heavy, and thus it can change the results of the experiment, as we only want the weight of magnesium and the magnesium oxide. 4. What are the possible sources of error in this experiment? Possible sources of error in this experiment include the inaccuracy of measurements, as correct measurements are vital for the experiment. The loss of magnesium oxide smoke can also be counted as a possible source of error: if you should lose some of the smoke, there would be a less amount of magnesium oxide than expected at the end of the experiment.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Managing Cultural Diversity Essay
The following paper brie y debates the rhetoric of managing diversity and considers whether managing diversity is a distinct approach to managing people or a means of diluting equal opportunities in UK organizations. With respect to the realities of the concepts in UK organizations, empirical data from a survey of sixty UK human resource professionals and general line managers is presented. We pose a number of cautionary questions, including what does it matter and to whom? By doing so we intend to encourage further critique and challenges in respect to the concept of managing diversity in organizations. Keywords: Managing diversity, equal opportunities, HRM/D, rhetoric, reality Introduction Today the workforce does not look, think, or act like any workforce of the past, nor does it hold the same values, have the same experiences, or pursue the same needs and desires (Jamieson and O’ Mara 1991). The composition of today’ s workforce has changed signi cantly in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, culture, education, disabilities, and values. Running parallel to these changes is the shift in thinking by human resource theorists and practitioners with regard to addressing equality in the workplace (Cooper and White 1995; Liff and Wacjman 1996). This shift is underpinned by the emergence of the business case argument for equal opportunities, as opposed to the persuasive debate for social justice or equal opportunities as ‘ correcting an imbalance, an injustice or a mistake’ (Thomas 1990). There is now a view that, after twenty years of the ‘ stick’ of legal compliance (which has achieved little), the ‘ carrot’ of underpinning the business case for equal opportunities will perhaps achieve more (Dickens 1994). The business case argument for equal opportunities in organizations is often termed ‘ managing or valuing diversity’ , but, as with most contemporary Human Resource Development International ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469–8374 online  © 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www. tandf. co. uk/journals 420 Peer-Reviewed Articles anagement issues, the underlying principles and interpretation of this concept are open to mass interpretation, criticism, and indeed misunderstanding. D. Miller (1996) argues that the significant widening of the meaning of equal opportunities has brought with it more complex and confusing messages for employers and practitioners. By drawing on literature and empirical data, we consider whether man aging diversity is a distinct approach to managing people or a means of diluting equal opportunities in UK organizations and pose a number of cautionary questions, including: what does it matter and to whom? By doing so, we intend to encourage further critique and challenges in respect to the concept of managing diversity in organizations. What is managing diversity? Thomas (2000) argues that, with the growing number of mergers and acquisitions, workforce diversity will become more of a priority for organizations and, therefore, in the future, people will become clearer on what diversity is and how to manage it. As with the debates surrounding de nitions of human resource management and development (HRM/D), managing diversity as a concept means different things to different people. It can relate to the issue of national cultures inside a multinational organization (Hofstede 1984); it can relate to the further development of equal opportunities or to a distinct method of integrating different parts of an organization and/or managing people strategically. Much of the literature regarding managing diversity relates to the US experience, where the concept is particularly popular; a re ection perhaps of the more pronounced diversity of workforce composition (Cassell 1996). In a recent report 1999), a Department of Education in America described managing and valuing diversity as a key component of effective people management, arguing that it focuses on improving the performance of the organization and promotes practices that enhance the productivity of all staff. Their dimensions of diversity include gender, race, culture, age, family/carer status, religion, and disability. The de nition provided also embraces a range of individual skills, educational quali cations, work experience and background, languages, and other relevant attributes and experiences which differentiate individuals.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Neighboring Countries in Geography
While some countries have many neighbors, others have very few. The number of bordering countries a nation has is an extremely important factor when considering its geopolitical relationship with surrounding countries. International borders play an important role in trade, national security, access to resources, and more. Many Neighbors China and Russia each have fourteen neighboring countries, more neighbors than the other countries of the world. Russia, the worlds largest country in area, has these fourteen neighbors: Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, North Korea, Norway, Poland, and Ukraine. China, the worlds third largest country in the area but the worlds most populous country, has these fourteen neighbors: Afghanistan, Bhutan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Vietnam. Brazil, the worlds fifth largest country, has ten neighbors: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, France (French Guiana), Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Few Neighbors Countries that occupy only islands (such as Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Iceland) may have no neighbors, although some island countries do share a border with a country (such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and Papua New Guinea and Indonesia). There are ten non-island countries that share a border with only one country. These countries include Canada (which shares a border with the United States), Denmark (Germany), Gambia (Senegal), Lesotho (South Africa), Monaco (France), Portugal (Spain), Qatar (Saudi Arabia), San Marino (Italy), South Korea (North Korea), and the Vatican City (Italy).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)