Analysis of Trifles A Jury of Her Peers - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1420 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/07/03 Category Literature Essay Level High school Topics: Trifles Essay Did you like this example? Trifles by Susan Glaspell was written in 1916 as a one act play about the investigation of a murder scene in a small farmhouse. One year later, Glaspell wrote A Jury of Her Peers which was written as a short story from the play. The idea for the story was born from Glaspells time as a news reporter for the Des Moines Daily News. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Analysis of Trifles: A Jury of Her Peers" essay for you Create order She had covered the story of a woman accused of murdering her husband while he was sleeping with an axe and then she wrote a work of fiction based on it. Both the play and the short story are the same with the exception of the change in genre. The themes of the story unfold as the women at the scene try to figure out the motive while examining insignificant things the men call Trifles. These two literary works both refer to the isolation and abuse of a woman by a man and through the use of theme, tone, and symbols, Glaspell is able to represent her views on the treatment of women in the early 1900s. The story follows five characters as they investigate the scene of a murder in a farmhouse. The murder suspect is Mrs. Wright who is accused of murdering her husband, Mr. Wright. It seems as though Mr. Wright has been carefully hung by a rope while he was sleeping. It is inferred that Mrs. Wright murdered him because the dead body remains in bed right next to where she was sleeping. Evidence needs to be discovered by the county attorney, sheriff, and Hale who is the next door neighbor. However, the wives of the sheriff and Hale are able to discover their own evidence because of the small details left behind in the kitchen where the women are waiting. As the plot unfolds, the women are able to understand and relate to why Mrs. Wright would want to kill her husband. Objects play an important part in the play such as a birdcage, bird box, and a quilt, just to name a few. Mr. Wrights patriarchal lifestyle causes figurative death in Mrs. Wright through her isolation. Ironically, this caus es his literal death in the end. Many themes are presented in this story with a strong focus on patriarchy, isolation, and loyalty. Mr. Wrights patriarchal behavior is the sole reason he met his demise. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale know all too well how men view women and seem to have an understanding of the loneliness Mrs. Wright must have felt. We see this with each piece of evidence they discover while waiting in the kitchen. The theme of isolation plays a very important part of the story. Mrs. Hale reveals that she never came over to visit Mrs. Wright in the twenty years she lived next door. She states, It never seemed a very cheerful place (495), in her excuse for not visiting. Later she reveals her regret, I stayed away because it werent cheerfuland thats why I ought to have come. I- she looked aroundIve never liked this place (500). We see the loyalty come in when the women make conscious decisions to keep the evidence from their husbands. One of those moments was when Mrs. Hales inner voice says, She felt that she ought to take her hand off the basket. She did not seem able to, Her eyes felt like fire. She had a feeling that if he took up the basket she would snatch it from him (503). She was hiding the dead bird the two women found to protect Mrs. Wright. Throughout the story there are comments made from the men that degrade women and their wives thoughts and comments are not taken seriously. Mr. Peters sarcastically exclaims, Held for murder, and worrying about her preserves (494)! In which Mr. Hale responds, Oh, well, women are used to worrying over trifles (494). They neglect what the women are concerned about and their tone presents how they view women. The dark tone of this story is felt in the beginning of Trifles with the stage direction. It states, Scene: The kitchen in the now abandoned farmhouse of John Wright, a gloomy kitchen, and left without having been put in order (246). This immediately gives you a feeling of a cold, unwelcome place. The dark and gloomy tone continues throughout as we learn the details of the murder where Mr. Wright was strangled by a rope around his neck while he was sleeping. Later more darkness when the women find the dead bird. Glaspell states, And then again the eyes of the two women metthis time clung together in a look of dawning comprehension, of growing horror (501). This points us to the womens realization that Mrs. Wright was in a desperate situation. She was oppressed and this was her only way to freedom. The symbols Glaspell uses helps show the sexism of men in that time period. One of those symbols is the use of trifles. The men overlook the things that they consider to be insignificant and useless to them with the investigation. The trifles symbolize the mens ignorance and they miss the opportunity to gather evidence to implicate Mrs. Wright. These things suggest her motive for killing her husband but the men dont care whats going on in the kitchen. Some of the insignificant things mentioned are the canning of the fruit, the quilt with the sloppy stitching, the empty broken birdcage, and the dead bird. These trifles couldve been used to reveal the truth about Mrs. Wright and her hopeless situation. The quilt is also used as a symbol when the two women repeatedly discuss the different styles of quilting that Mrs. Wright would have used to make the quilt, either regular or knotting. The women tell Mr. Henderson at the end that Mrs. Wright was going to knot it. This serves as a repres entation of Mr. Wright being killed by a rope knotted around his throat. The birdcage represents the isolation Mrs. Wright felt while trapped in her home in an abusive marriage. He was cold, unkind, and treated her poorly. The dead bird was symbolic with how Mr. Wright treated her throughout their marriage. Like the songbird, Mrs. Wright was once a beautiful singer who had a lovely, bright personality. The bird was her companion when everything was dark in her world. When her husband killed her bird, he crushed the only hope she had to make her life worth living and she retaliated by killing him, channeling years of pain and destruction of her self-worth. Mrs. Hale stated, If there had been years and years ofnothing, then a bird to sing to you, it would be awfulstillafter the bird was still (502). Mrs. Wright was just like the bird that was stuffed into that birdcage which represented her in her marriage. And the killing of the bird destroyed her spirit. Although the play and the short story were published separately, they both are able to convey their message of mens attitudes towards women in a time when women didnt have many rights. Trifles is presented in all dialogue form so the reader isnt able to hear the thoughts of the characters, particularly the women in the kitchen. A Jury of Her Peers gives us much more information while presenting the same exact story. For example in Trifles it states, (They all look at the rocker) (1126), and in the same part of the story in A Jury of Her Peers it states, Everyone in the kitchen looked at the rocker. It came into Mrs. Hales mind that the rocker didnt look in the least like Minnie Fosterthe Minnie Foster of twenty years before. It was a dingy red, with wooden rungs up the back, and the middle rung was gone, and the chair sagged to one side (492). This gives a deeper image of what they are all staring at while also giving us a glimpse of Mrs. Hales thoughts when looking at it. Trifles le aves more up to the imagination of the audience. Regardless of the genre one chooses for Glaspells work of fiction about insignificant things, they both are able to convey their message that the treatment of women in the early 1900s was a lonely, desperate time where men were superior and women were inferior to them. It was very important for all women to band together to demand changes in a society that was male dominated and Glaspell is able to represent her views on the treatment of women through the use of theme, tone, and symbols.

I Had The Privilege Of Attending An Event Put On By The...

Holocaust Event I had the privilege of attending an event put on by the Hillel/Jewish Student Organization. The event took place on the campus of Central Michigan University January 27th, 2016, in Pearce Hall. The official name of this event was: â€Å"Holocaust Survivor Martin Lowenberg at Central Michigan University†, and it featured Mr. Martin Lowenberg himself as the presenter. Martin Lowenberg is 87 years old and is from Schenklengsfeld, Germany. He lived in Schenklengsfeld until his 8th birthday, when he was accused of sticking his tongue out at a picture of Adolf Hitler and was forced to sit on a board of nails as a punishment. After this incident, Martin, along with his other family members, decided to send him to a boarding school†¦show more content†¦Martin’s Father, Mother and twin brothers were taken to the most famous and awful concentration camp known during the Holocaust, Auschwitz. The one thing that really stood out to me while Mr. Lowenberg wa s speaking about his twin brothers during this time was he hoped that they â€Å"died fast. His reasoning for this statement was because it was known that when twins were sent to Auschwitz they had horrible and painful experiments performed on them. He was hoping that his brothers did not have to go through the torture for too long, or at all, for that matter, hence he hoped they â€Å"died fast†. Martin was sent to camps in Hamburg, then Fuhlsbuettel, Kiel third, and finally Malmo where he was saved by the Russian army. Martin and his sister then moved to the United States where they currently live. The only other person to survive besides Martin and his sister was their other sister who was already living in the United States before the war broke out. The Holocaust was an awful yet historic event that occurred not so long ago when compared to some historic events but changed the world into what it is today. The German army under the control of Adolf Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, homosexuals, the physical and mentally challenged and other religions Germans. The Holocaust started in 1941 and ended with the invasion of Germany by the Russians in 1945. This is a famous example of oppression in history. The prisoners at these concentration camps

The War of the Roses Free Essays

string(23) " HOUSE OF THE YORK: I\." British Studies THE WAR OF THE ROSES †¢ Introduction †¢ Name of The War of the Roses †¢ Famous people in The War of the Roses †¢ Causes of The War of the Roses †¢ The War of the Roses †¢ The result and impact of The War of the Roses †¢ The summary †¢ Bibliography I. INTRODUCTION T he Middle Age considers one of the most exciting periods in English history. One of the most historical events of medieval era is the Wars of the Roses in the fifteenth century. We will write a custom essay sample on The War of the Roses or any similar topic only for you Order Now The Hundred Years’ War , in which England lost practically all its lands in France, ended in 1453, but there was no peace in the country. The feudal struggle had broken out and the atmosphere in this country was instable and uncertain leading to the civil war in the fifteenth century. The War of the Roses was a series of dynastic civil war for the throne of England between supporters of two rival branches of the royal house Plantagenet: the house of Lancaster (whose badge was red rose) and York (whose badge was white house) from 1455-1485. These thirty years of warfare was even more destructive to England the Hundred years’ War that had been in the previous century. Most of the fighting in the Hundred Years’ War took place in France, which meant most of the military damage affected in French peasantry rather than the English. In the War of the Roses, most of the fighting occurred in England, and thus the loss of the life and property was much greater for England citizens). Why was the called The War of the Roses? Why did the War of the Roses happen? How it happened? And what was the result? There are many interesting things about this famous war. Let’ discover together. II. THE NAME OF THE WAR OF THE ROSES: ? It is really an exciting name. Why was called the war of the roses? This name was given to the Wars by Tudor historians. The name â€Å"Wars of the Roses† refers to the Heraldic badges associated with the two royal houses, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. [pic] ? However, it is not thought to have been used during the time of the wars. – The White Rose was one of the many emblems which were used by King Edward IV as a symbol of his father’s right to some lands and a castle in the North. Generally he preferred to use the emblem of the sun and its rays, a reference to the three suns which appeared at the dawn of the day of the battle of Mortimer’s Cross 1461. The White Rose only later became accepted as the symbol of the House of York, particularly when Elizabeth of York married King Henry VII, but before then other emblems were in general use by the Yorkists. – The Red Rose was the emblem of the House of Tudor, and the Tudors only played a substantial part in the Wars during their final stages. The king Henry Tudor united the two roses to create the Tudor ‘rose which contain both white rose and red rose after marrying Elizabeth of the York. That‘s why the war between them got the name the War of the Roses. III. FAMOUS PEOPLE RELATING TO THE WAR OF THE ROSES During the war of the Roses, there are kings or Dukes who contributed main roles in the war. Let’ begin our discovery with the first king of the house Lancaster. †¢ THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER 1. THE KING HENRY IV Reign: 30 September 1399 – 20 March 1413 Coronation: 13 October 1399 Predecessor: Richard II Successor: Henry V Henry IV was King of Englan d and Lord of Ireland (1399–1413). He was the ninth King of England of the House of Plantagenet. He became the first King of England from the Lancaster branch of the Plantagenet, one of the two family branches that were belligerents in the War of the Roses. 2. THE KING HENRY V Reign: 20 March 1413 – 31 August 1422 Coronation: 9 April 1413 Predecessor: Henry IV Successor: Henry VI Henry V was King of England from 1413 until his death at the age of 35 in 1422. He was the second English monarch who came from the House of Lancaster. After military experience fighting various lords who rebelled against his father, Henry IV, Henry came into political conflict with the increasingly ill king. After his father’s death, Henry rapidly assumed control of the country and embarked on war with France. Henry IV was a very brilliant king. 3. THE KING HENRY VI Reign :31 August 1422 – 4 March 1461 Coronation: 6 November 1429 Predecessor: Henry V Successor: Edward IV Henry VI (1421 – 1471) was King of England from 1422 to 1461 and again from 1470 to 1471, and disputed King of France from 1422 to 1453. His periods of insanity and his inherent benevolence eventually required his wife, Margaret of Anjou, to assume control of his kingdom, which contributed to his own downfall, the collapse of the House of Lancaster, and the rise of the House of York. 4. THE KING HENRY VII (HENRY TUDOR) Reign: 22 August 1485 – 21 April 1509 Coronation: 30 October 1485 Predecessor: Richard III Successor: Henry VIII Henry VII (Welsh: Harri Tudur;1457 – 1509) was King of England and Lord of Ireland from his seizing the crown on 22 August 1485 until his death on 21 April 1509, as the first monarch of the House of Tudor. Henry won the throne when he defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Fiel. He was the last king of England to win his throne on the field of battle. He was successful in restoring the power and stability of the English monarchy after the political upheavals of the Wars of the Roses. He founded a long-lasting dynasty and was peacefully succeeded by his son, Henry VIII, after a reign of nearly 24 years. THE HOUSE OF THE YORK: I. You read "The War of the Roses" in category "Papers" THE KING EDWARD IV Reign: 4 March 1461  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 3 October 1470 Coronation: 28 June 1461 Predecessor: Henry VI Successor :Henry VI Edward IV (1442  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 1483) was King of England from 4 March 1461 until 3 October 1470, and again from 11 April 1471 until his death. He was the first York ist King of England. The first half of his rule was marred by the violence associated with the Wars of the Roses, but he overcame the Lancastrian challenge to this throne at Tewkesbury in 1471 to reign in peace until his sudden death. 5. THE KING RICHARD III Reign 26 June 1483 – 22 August 1485 Coronation 6 July 1483 Predecessor Edward V Successor Henry VII Richard III (2 October 1452 – 22 August 1485) was King of England for two years, from 1483 until his death in 1485 during the Battle of Bosworth Field. He was the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty. III. CAUSES OF THE WAR OF THE ROSES ? There are three main causes leading to the War of the Roses. ? The first reason is the political crisis (dynastic problems) – In 1215, the Norman barons were united with the Saxon nobles and the growing bourgeoisie of the big towns and they took park in the governing in the country. During the Hundred years’ war, they built castles with high walls and kept private armies of thousands of men. Realizing the danger with big barons represented to the crown, Edward III tried to marry his sons to their daughters, and the heiresses of the House but this not help to strengthen the position of the House Plantagenet. Then, Henry Bolingbroke seized the crown and became the first king of the Lancaster dynasty, Henry IV (1399- 1413). ; It marked the end of the line of the Plantagenet monarchy and the beginning of the Tudor reign; the end of Medieval England and the beginning of the country’s Renaissance. However, Henry IV‘s reign was not an easy one. Having taking the throne by force, he had made many enemies, especially those whose legitimate claim to the throne he had ignored. Henry ‘s oldest son ( who would became Henry V ) was a brilliant and courageous warrior and was responsible, on many occasion, for putting down major rebellions against his father–rebellions that came from the other side of the family who wanted the throne. Beginning in 1405, Henry IV suffered from a recurring illness that finally took his life in 1413. – Henry V (1387-1422) would go on to secure English-held lands in France and trengthen the bond between the two countries by winning the right to the French, as well as to the English, Crown. Henry V died at a young age in battle in France, leaving a nine-month-old son–King Henry VI. While Henry V was busy fighting wars in France and accumulating wealth for his country, the feudal between the York and Lancaster Houses was subdued. Only one rebellion occurred, and the leader of that rebellion was tried for treason and killed. – However, with Henry V’s death–and only a baby for king, and Henry V’s wife, who was not only young but of French blood–members of both Houses began maneuvering again for power. Henry VI was a weak man, surrounded by poorly ma naged counselors. Not only did Henry suffer from mental illnesses, he lost most of the land that his father had won in France. Although Henry VI technically was king of France, he lost all authority in that country. Many English nobles, each with his own powerful army, grew discontent with Henry VI’s rule. The interests of the House of the Lancaster supported by the big barons collided with the interests of the lesser barons and merchants of the towns, who support the House of the York. As a result, the feudal struggle grew into an open war between the Lancastrians and the Yorkist. William Shakespeare offers one poetic endorsement of this view: â€Å"My Lord of Hereford [Henry IV] here, whom you call king, Is a foul traitor to proud Hereford’s king[Richard II]: And if you crown him, let me prophesy: The blood of English shall manure the ground, And future ages groan for this foul act; Peace shall go sleep with Turks and infidels, And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars Shall kin with kin and kind with kind confound; Disorder, horror, fear and mutiny Shall here inhabit, and this land be call’d The field of Golgotha and dead men’s skulls. O, if you raise this house against this house, It will the woefullest division prove That ever fell upon this cursed earth. † ? The second reason, in my opinion, is financial problems and societal changes. – The fifteenth century had many changes in society that seriously affected to the war of the roses. The issues increased from the beginning of Henry VI’s reign in 1422 with the corruption, public disorder, riots and the maladministration of justice.. After the leadership of King Henry V, â€Å"The Flower of Chivalry† and the â€Å"Mirror of all Christian Kings,† the weak and placid Henry VI was a great disappointment. We can see that it was a bad government, militarily ineffective and financially irresponsible. His fool and weakness in governing directed his country down the bloody road of civil war. The king loaded his ministers and friends with gifts and pensions. Many people who were owed money at the Exchequer, such as military commanders, could not collect on their debts because there was not enough money to go around. People lost faith in the courts and turned to threats and violence to gain victory in their disputes. The result is a social climate approaching gangsterism. The social violence before and during the Wars of the Roses is often blamed on a phenomenon known as â€Å"bastard feudalism. † ? Finally, I consider the hundred year’ war affecting to the war of the roses, too. – The Wars of the Roses began soon after the Hundred Years War ended. The suggestion that nobles were trying to retrieve fortunes lost in the withdrawal from France does not agree with the evidence. Few major families lost much by the English defeat – most of the major magnates were growing wealthier. – However, the end of the Hundred Years war did remove one reason for unity within England: foreign war tends to unite people at home. The end of the War also left many unemployed soldiers – a destabilizing group in society. Medieval knights and nobles were a military caste, and it was as easy for them to engage in domestic as foreign warfare. IV. THE WAR OF THE ROSE T he war of the roses, which lasted for thirty years (1455-1485), turned into a bitter struggle for the Crown, in which each party murdered every likely heir to the throne of the opposite party. It was a dark time for England, when the Kings and nobles were busy fighting and murdering each other and no time to take care of the common people, who suffered greatly. ? The opening battle of the Wars took place at St Albans in 1455. Richard of York leads a force of about 3,000 on a march toward London. Henry VI moves from London to intercept the Yorkist army. Henry halts his march in the town of Saint Albans and waits. Richard attacks and defeats Henry inflicting about 300 casualties. The Queen and her young son Edward flee into exile. The Yorkist faction also kills the Lancastrian ally Somerset, the primary supporter of Henry VI. ? After that, the queen rebelled at these actions, gathered an army around her, and positioned herself outside of York. When the duke learned of this, he went after her, although the queen’s troops were double the size of the duke’s. The duke’s army was easily defeated. In 1459 Richard was killed at the Battle of Wakefield. ? In 1461, the Battle of Towson, one of the bloodiest battles ever fought on English soil at the time, was fought with an estimated 25,000 people dying. Edward’s army greatly defeated the queen’s army, forcing the queen and king, with their son, to flee to Scotland. That same year, Edward was officially crowned king of England, becoming Edward IV. ? Edward enjoy a few years of peace, but when he married Elizabeth Woodville in secret, he embarrassed Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, who was working to arrange a marriage for Edward with the French king. Edward also disallowed his brothers, Richard and George, to marry Neville’s daughters. In 1469, Neville and George fought against Edward. They won a decisive battle, held Edward hostage, killed Edward’s father-in-law, and forced Edward to have parliament recognize Edward as an illegitimate king and to give the crown to George. Edward’s younger brother, Richard, rescued the king, and Neville and George had to flee to France. ? In France, it was King Louis XI who suggested the alliance of Queen Margaret and Neville. The two agreed, Neville promised his daughter as wife to the queen’s son, and returned to England with a powerful army. Edward was defeated and had to flee to Holland and then to Burgundy. Edward, supported by the king of Burgundy, returned to England. Shortly after Neville had paraded Henry VI all over London as the restored king, he was defeated by Edward’s new army in 1471. Henry as well as his son were then killed, strengthening Edward’s claim to the throne. ? Edward died young, in 1483, leaving his twelve-year-old son heir to the throne. Edward V’s reign lasted only a couple of months. Richard, the uncle to the young king, claimed that his brother (Edward IV) had married Elizabeth illegally and therefore his heirs could not be crowned king. Parliament agreed, and crowned King Richard III in 1483. Edward V was placed in the Tower of London, along with his younger brother, and was never again seen. ? Two years later, in 1485, Richard would meet his death in a battle against Henry Tudor of the House of Lancaster; he would become King Henry VII. Henry married Elizabeth of York, the strongest claimant for the throne from the York house, thus securing his position and ending the long Wars of the Roses. [pic]The map of the battles in the War of the Roses (1455-1485) V. THE RESULT AND EFFECTS OF THE WAR OF THE ROSES Historians still debate the true extent of the conflict’s impact on medieval English life, and some revisionists suggest that it leaded to many profound changes in England. The most obvious impact is the collapse of the Plantagenet and the raise of the Tudor dynasty. ; Moreover, with their heavy casualties among the nobility, the wars are thought to have continued the changes in feudal English society caused by the effects of the Black Death, including a weakening of the feudal power of the nobles and a corresponding strengthening of the merchant classes, and the growth of a strong, centralized monarchy under the Tudors. It marked the end of the medieval period in England and the movement towards the Renaissance. VI. SUMMARY ? In my opinion, Middle Ages encompass one of the most exciting and bloodthirsty periods in English and European History with two important events. They are the Hundred Years’ War and The War of the Roses which seriously affected to the society, politics, economy and other aspect of England at that time especially the War of the Roses. It marked the end of the line of the Plantagenet monarchy and the beginning of the Tudor reign (118 years) and even the end of Medieval England and the beginning of the country’s Renaissance. It was really an exciting period. I hope that some information above will be useful for all of you during this course and later. VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY ? The War of the Rose Evans, HT (introduction by Ralph A Griffiths) – Sutton Publishing 1998 ? The Wars of the Roses Gillingham, John – Weidenfeld ; Nicholson 2001 ? The Wars of the Roses Griffiths, Ralph A – Sutton Publishing 1998 ? Lancaster ; York Ramsay, JH – Oxford University Press 1892 QUESTION: 1. Which is considered the first main battle in the war of the roses? a. The battle of St. Albans b. The battle of Barnet c. The battle of Tadcaster d. The battle of Blore Heath 2. enry IV had a famous wife , depends on your point of view, who was this powerful women. a. Margaret of Anjou b. Mary de Guise c. Eleanor of Aquitaine d. Matida of Flanders 3. Richard duke of York was killed at which major battle? a. battle of Doncaster b. Battle of Wakefield c. Battle of Tacaster d. Battle of Sedgemoor 4. how long did the War of the Roses last? a. 10 years b. 30 years c. 50 years d. 100 years 5. this battle is widely thought to have the bloodiest ever fought on England soid. It marked a major Yorkist victory in 1461. which of these is it? a. battle of Hexbam b. Battle of Towton c. Battle of the Tadcaster d. Battle of the Hedgley Moor 6. what color rose was used to represent Lancastrians? a. white b. red c. blue d. black 7. In which century did the wars of the Roses take place ? a. 14th century b. 15th century c. 16th century d. 17th century 8. which foreign power sided with Edward IV during the wars a. Italy b. Spain c. France d. Bungery 9. which of these people was on the Lancastrians side during the war of the Roses? a. Thomas Cromwell b. Margaret of Anjou c. Richard Neville the king maker d. Richard Duke of York 10. Who was the first king of House of Lancaster? a. Richard Duke b. Henry Bolingbroke c. Henry Tudor d. Edward II END [pic][pic] How to cite The War of the Roses, Essays The War of the Roses Free Essays string(25) " peers that Henry could\." The War of the Roses was a series of dynastic civil wars fought between the House of Lancaster and the House of York. Theses two houses fought for the English throne, and both thought it was theirs to take. The houses both claimed the throne due to the fact that they had decent through the sons of Edward Ill. We will write a custom essay sample on The War of the Roses or any similar topic only for you Order Now So they both felt that they were deserving of the throne. This wasn’t the first or the last time that these two houses fought each other, but this was by far their biggest encounter. One reason that these two started fghting was the aftermath of the Hundred Years War. The inancial and social troubles hit hard and they thought they could do better Job running things. People during this time started to panic and they all wanted a piece of the pie. Prior to the war, heirs to the throne started dying so the number of aristocrats started dropping slowly. Some people suggest that the English aristocracy was destroyed due to the War of the Roses, but I would argue differently. The fact that all these men were fghting over the throne does suggest that there were some deaths, but I don’t believe that it was the cause of the removal of the English aristocracy. Before I make my argument on why I believe the aristocracy was not destroyed by the War of the roses, I want to give a brief outline of the war. The hostility rose after the death of Henry V and the infant Henry VI was in line to take over. Richard, Duke of York, challenged the right of Henry VI’s crown because he wanted it for himself. He had descent through Edward Ill’s surviving sons. There is evidence that shows how important the throne was to the people during this time and they were willing to do anything to try and get it. There was obviously some history behind the people who fought in the war and how the title of the war was amed. The Heraldic badges that associated themselves with the two houses, York and Lancaster, were roses. The House of York was a white rose and the House of Lancaster was a red rose. Early in the conflict, the York picked the white rose as their symbol, but the Lancaster rose was not introduced until after Henry Tudor won the battle of Bosworth. So the war was not called â€Å"War of the Roses† until years later after the war. During the war the participants wore badges to show which lord or patron that they were associated with. One example of this that I read was the white boar of Richard Ill worn by the Yorkist army. The houses were named after the cities York and Lancaster of course, but the houses didn’t have much to do with the city it was named after. The House of Lancaster was established in 1399 by Henry of Bolingbroke. Henry of Bolingbroke was later crowned as Henry IV after he deposed his cousin Richard II. The next Lancaster king was Henry V and he died in 1422, but there was some hostility on who would take over the crown. When Henry V died he only had an infant son to take over. This is when Richard Ill challenged Henry VI’s right to the crown like I mentioned before. Richard Ill was a very powerful man and eld very important offices within the state. This was the first political disagreement between the two houses and the beginning ofa feud that would start a war. In 1453 Henry VI (by now he was old enough to take the throne) went into insanity. â€Å"Henrys condition was non-violent: as a result of depressive stuper he lost control of his limbs York, to take over as the protector of the realm. Henry recovered in 1455 and took over his duties, which forced York to take up arms of self-protection. The fighting started with the battle of St. Albans in 1455. â€Å"Their numbers were vaguely estimated t 3000 men, while the Duke of Norfolk and other friends were hastening to their aid; the Kings force was estimated at 2000 men. â€Å"2 Richard, Duke of York and the Earl of Warwick defeated the Lancastrians who was led by Edmund. Edmund was the Duke of Somerset, and he played an important role before the war for the Lancastrians. He was killed in this battle and Henry VI was captured which resulted in Richard being appointed Lord Protector. The queen, Margaret of Anjou, kept pushing the Lancastrians to challenge the York House. Things were pretty quite over the next few years, but it started heating back up in 1459. York and his followers were forced out of the country, but he would retaliate sooner than people thought he would. One of his strongest followers invaded England and captured Henry at the Battle of Northampton. The heavy rain played in the favor of the Earl of Warwick during this battle and capturing Henry was much easier than people think. This battle resulted in four years of truce between the two houses, but they still didn’t like the other one. There wasn’t any major conflict during this time, but it was still uneasy between them. The civil wars between the two houses continued in 1459. York returned to the country becoming the Protector of England, but was not able to take the throne. York moved north with his son Edmund, but the Lancastrian nobles surprised and killed both of them in the Battle of Wakefield. The Lancastrian army went south afterwards but was unsuccessful in the taking of London. York had an eldest son named Edward, Earl of March, who was later named King Edward IV. He was best known for winning the Battle of Towton. In Anthony Goodman’s book he states, â€Å"At Towton Edward could muster probably fewer than half the peers that Henry could. You read "The War of the Roses" in category "Papers" â€Å"3 This goes to show ow big of a victory it was for Edward. He crushed the Lancastrian army in March 1461 by gathering the Yorkist armies resulting in a strong force that was too much to handle for the Lancaster’s. It was the bloodiest battle of the war, which resulted in Henry, Margaret, and their son fleeing to Scotland. The next series of battles was over disputes within the Yorkists ranks. Warwick and his followers felt like they were a powerful group, and when they got looked over at Edward’s court, it didn’t make them very happy. Warwick didn’t agree with a foreign policy that the king was putting n place and the tension grew greater. This resulted in another civil war in 1469, where Warwick and the Duke of Clarence instigated risings in the north. Then they defeated the kings supporters at Edgecote. There he held Edward prisoner, but nothing really came out of it. Edward had regained control by 1470 and made Warwick and Clarence fled to France. While in France, they allied themselves with Louis X’. Here is where things get a little tricky because they also allied themselves with their former enemy Margaret of Anjou. Working together, they went back to England in September of 1470. There, they forced Edward out of his throne and restored the crown to Henry VI. After being stripped of the crown, Edward fled out of England to the Netherlands with his supporters. There he got Burgundian aid and returned to England a year later. Edward outsmarted Warwick due to the fact that he knew the land, and talked Clarence into Joining his side. Then he easily defeated that Warwick was defeated and her and her son fled west to the safety of Wales. Edward anticipated that Margaret would do this and beat her there. She was captured as a prisoner, and her supporters were defeated. There her son was killed and Margaret didn’t have much power or support after these series of events. Very soon after these events, Henry VI was murdered in the Tower of London. It is thought that Henry heard of the death of his son, and when Edward IV was re-crowned, he ordered Henrys death. Edward’s throne was secure for the rest of his life and was never challenged or taken away. When Edward died in 1483, hostility begins again. Richard Ill took over the throne and he first moved to prevent the unpopular Woodville family of Edward’s widow from participating in the government. Richard sed the suspicious Edward IVs marriage as pretext. To stop Richard, Henry Tudor (a distant relative of the Lancastrian king) was brought in and defeated him at Bosworth. He was then crowned Henry VI’, and married Elizabeth of York to unite the two rival houses. Yorkist revolted and these were the last few battles of the war, but nothing really came out of it. These battles weren’t very big or important; it was Just the fact that the Yorkist were upset that they were united. Many historians like to believe that the Wars of the Roses were the result of the English aristocracy being destroyed. After reading material on these wars and reading Kington Oliphant’s article, I can’t help but to think otherwise. According to Oliphant there are 27 historic houses. † There are about twenty-seven great historic houses that belong to the former division, if we adopt a fair test for the term â€Å"Historic House,† and excluede from it all those families which have not held an Earldom in the male line continuously for at least one hundred years, or thereabouts, before the Reformation. 4 The houses in the 13th century really started getting recognized, and this is the period that begins hostility between houses. This also is the period that you see a rapid decline in houses. † The Earls of Albermarle had died out so early as the Twelfth Century, and four great historic Earldoms dropped in the Thirteenth. The Century of Edward the Third s wept away at least seven Norman Houses of the very first class; amoun which were those of Clare, Bigod, and Bohun,- names intertwined with the brightest achievements of our early history. In the first and more peaceful part of Henry the Sixth’s reign, before Englishman had dreamt of civil war, the process of decay was Just as rapid. The last Mortimer, Earl of March, the rightful heir o the crown died a prisoner in 1424; the last Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, was struck down by a cannon ball at the siege of Orleans, not long before the appearance of the immortal Maid; the last Beauchamp, Duke of Warwick, passed away in 1445. â€Å"5 So what Oliphant is getting to is the fact that there were 12 houses that were already disappeared before the war even started. Well you might ask well there are still a number of houses to be counted for during the war so what is your point? Well from the start of the war (1455) to the end of the war (1487) there were a number of ouses that died that was unrelated to the war. Oliphant mentions the houses that died during the war but not because of the war. â€Å"Foremost in this category comes the name of Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of the realm, who died in 1475. To this we may add the less known names of Bromflete, Harington, Scales, and Sudeley. The Wars of the Roses had nothing to do with the extinction of these five houses in Roses. The Bonville, Tiptoft, Beaufort, Holland, and Lovell all died during the strife. Oliphant tells the story behind each of these names and how they died to end their ouse. The point that I want to make clear throughout this paper is the fact that the number of houses that had died out before the Wars of the Roses, clearly outweigh the number of houses that have failed since the beginning of it. Well you might ask, Why did this happen? YouVe gave me numbers and the fact that the Wars of the Roses didn’t cause the fail of the English aristocracy, but how did it happen. Oliphant does a great Job of comparing another countries aristocracy to England’s. He uses old Scottish houses and what they did compared to what the old English houses did. Two causes have preserved the old Scottish houses from sharing the fate of their English brethren. The first was the prejudice in favour of heirs male, which would not allow the lands of a noble family to be split up among co-heiresses; the second cause was the practice of allotting small estates to younger sons, whereby the chance of always having an heir male at hand was much increased. 7 Showing the old Scottish houses and how they did things like this proves that there was a way to save the old English houses, but they failed to do so. Land was a big issue back then and it still is today. The Scottish houses knew that and knew they had to do something to preserve that land. They had to find a way to keep in the heir’s family so it wouldn’t eventually die out like most of the old English h ouses did. The next way the Scottish â€Å"preserved† their houses was the practice of allotting small estates to younger sons. The probability of always having a male take over the heir was a lot higher than if they didn’t do this. These are Just some ways that the Scottish houses did to ensure that they didn’t run into the same mistake that the English did. To me the English houses didn’t invest in themselves very much. They didn’t have a back up plan in case something happen to them and they died out. Historians studying this era tend to think that the Wars of the Roses wiped out these houses so they weren’t really thinking about investing in themselves. Oliphant proves that most of these houses were already died out ten years prior to the war so that assumption is inaccurate. There was a lack of effort in making sure that the houses never died out, but there shouldn’t be any excuse for it. They should be prepared for the freak accidents or the natural causes that may come their way for the sake of the house. I believe that it was a little about pride, and the old Scottish aristocracy had that. They were proud of their houses and they wanted to keep it going. The English were to caught up in other things to think about, what happens to the house if something happens to me? What I wanted to get out of this paper was to know more about the War of the Roses and to dig deeper inside the war. I wanted to find something worth arguing about and giving evidence on my point of view. I found out that the English houses started to die out and historians had suggestions for why this was happening. Some had the ame mindset I had, and others thought it was because of the war. I believe that the war had an effect on some of the houses during time, but it didn’t have the extinction effect that people said it did. The Wars of the Roses was a great time period and had a lot of conflict that went with it. I’m positive that the conflict did have a little effect on the old English aristocracy dying out, but to say the war was the reason why it was destroyed makes no sense at all. In my opinion it was irresponsible of the men to not something special like the Scottish did, and who knows what the English could have been today. How to cite The War of the Roses, Essays

Investment and Analysis For the Budget Required For Coffee Shop

Question: Discuss about the Investment and Analysis For the Budget Required For Setting Up the Coffee Shop in New Zealand. Answer: Introduction This report reflects the details and investment appraisal strategies to evaluate the amount of expenditure, investment and analysis for the budget required for setting up the coffee shop in New Zealand. It is further observed that if entrepreneur wants to set up a coffee shop in New Zealand then it will require investment approximately NZ$ 4,50,000. Investment project and aspects of investment projects With the increasing ramification of economic changes and increasing growth of coffee business in New Zealand, it is evaluated that if a businessman wants to set up a new coffee business in New Zealand then he has to make arrangement of finance. However, estimation of approximately NZ$ 4, 50,000 investment is required for setting up new coffee business. In setting up new coffee business in New Zealand, it will cost around NZ$ 4, 50,000 amount. It is observed that company has to raise capital from internal and external sources such as own funding, issues of shares and debenture in market and using retained earnings (Gotze, Northcott Schuster, 2016). Capital and revenue expenditure requirement Details Cost (NZ$) Infrastructure 1,00,000 Sales team hired= Employees salary= 1K* 13 employees=13K Human resources investment= 7K Managers salary= 5k*2 =10K 50,000 Value chain expense 1,50,000 Investment plan 50,000 Legal department expenses 25,000 Tender filling cost 1,00,000 Licensing cost 50,000 Hired space 25,000 Project cost escalation 25,000 Total required cost 5,50,000 (Alkaraan, 2017). This details shows that in order to set up new coffee shop business in New Zealand businessmen will have to bear cost around NZ$ 5, 50,000. Investment details related to raw material It is evaluated that innovative steps in this new coffee business could take the entrepreneur on big level. It is considered that if entrepreneur who have set up business in New Zealand, has to make investment to buy best quality of raw material such as high quality sugar, coffee beans, and lengthy process to beat the coffee and using different flavor to change the taste of coffee. However, people in New Zealand are more inclined towards buying high quality of coffee irrespective of the price charged for the same. Therefore, management department of new coffee business in New Zealand should focus on buying best raw material in value chain activities (Dyson, Berry, 2014). Cash for operation In order to establish new coffee business in New Zealand, entrepreneur would be in need of arranging NZ$ 5, 50,000. However, the main risk involved in arrangement of cash for this business is related to overburden of cost of capital. If entrepreneur failed to have return on capital employed more than its cost of capital then it will result into loss to the value of capital invested in business (Dyson, Berry, 2014). Profitability of investment After evaluating the coffee business market in New Zealand, it is evaluated that Coffee business has high growth in New Zealand market. It is considered that teenage people, couples and office going persons are more inclined towards drinking coffee. In addition to this, the cost of one coffee will take only 30% of the selling prices which would be (NZ $ 4*30%= NZ $ 1.2). This reflects that company could have profit of 70% from its coffee selling business which will help businessman to create value on his investment (Parsons Wilkinson, 2015). Risk and opportunity apparent from the investment project Risk It is considered that due to high growth in the coffee market in New Zealand, there are several new comers who are entering into coffee business with innovative ideas and creative business functioning. It is evaluated that if businessman fails to deliver new coffee business as per the demand and need of clients then other rivals will grab all the potential clients from the market (Gotze, Northcott Schuster, 2016). Opportunity Coffee business and demand of coffee products are increasing very drastically in New Zealand. Ideally, couples, Teenagers and other office going persons are more inclined towards drinking coffee. Moreover, the coffee products costing will be 30% of the sells price which will reflect high profit earning amount for the company. In addition to this, fixed cost and other abnormal losses are also very low in coffee business. Conclusion It is evaluated that innovative steps in this new coffee business could take the entrepreneur on big level. If proper level of risk and opportunity is measured in determined approach then entrepreneur could easily grab the potential opportunity and available investment options. References Alkaraan, F. (2017). Strategic Investment Appraisal: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. InAdvances in Mergers and Acquisitions(pp. 67-82). Emerald Publishing Limited. Dyson, R. G., Berry, R. H. (2014). Capital investmen Research: Frontiers of Operational Research and Applied Systems Analysis, 59. Gotze, U., Northcott, D., Schuster, P. (2016).INVESTMENT APPRAISAL. SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN AN. Gotze, U., Northcott, D., Schuster, P. (2016).INVESTMENT APPRAISAL. SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN AN. Parsons, A., Wilkinson, M. H. (2015). Retailing in New Zealand: Where Are We and Where To Next?. InEuropean Retail Research(pp. 141-160). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden