Buckingham had too much influence with the King; this meant he was seen as one of the main causes to the break down in parliament. James wanted money from the Parliament in 1625 because of the war with Spain. Parliament decided to grant a tonnage and poundage as the monarch’s main source of Revenue. Opposition MPs discussed Parliament choosing the Kings ministers for him and also the impeachment of those who gained undue influence over him; this was especially aimed at Buckingham. A breakdown in parliament then occurred because Charles realized the parliamentary attack on Buckingham was increasing so in 1625 dissolved his first Parliament in order to protect his close companion.
Another reason feudalism lost power was the mercenaries that fought for the English king. After the first of the many treaties during the war was signed in 1360 by France, the English king did not want to release his unruly soldiers on his own land. Instead, they were loosed on France where they were free to loot and pillage as they pleased. Castles that belonged to lords took a beating as the mercenaries took them over and then sold them back to the lords for a large price. New weaponry made in the war made the king stronger against nobles.
He began to rule on his own Louis XIV filled his counsels with families loyal to royalty and rising politicians (who would be dependent on him for their status) He did not take away the nobility's local powers Usually informally consulted with the parlement before making decisions Exception: Curtailed Paris parlement's power to register the King's laws • Had to register the law before questioning it ➢ Versailles Louis XIV used propaganda against the nobles He could outspend them He created an enormous palace in Versailles Modeled after the “sun king” Cost a ton of money, but the political dividends were amazing Nobles could pay to live there • Depleting their resources • Becoming dependent on Louis XIV Nobles realized that Louis XIV would preserve the social structure, keeping them in control of local politics ➢ King by Divine Right Bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet defended the
All Russian governments in this period faced strong opposition to their regime with the period as a whole punctuated by riots, disturbances and revolutions. Political change was expected in Russia during this period, particularly during the Tsarist regime where the growth of the revolutionary intelligentsia, ironically an effect of the Great Reforms, led many to question the need for a Tsar or a royal family at all. The first main success of political opposition is widely considered to be the assassination of Alexander II at the hands of the People’s Will in 1881. Although they assassinated their Tsar, it is very likely this did not actually lead to their desired outcome, it being greater political freedom/democracy. Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia.
He had complete power and with that power he forced Catholicism and raised taxes on the bourgeoisie to give money to the nobility and the clergy. The French people revolted after he passed the “July Ordinance” which made free press illegal and got rid of his legislators. After Charles X fled, the people elected Luis-Philippe as king. At first the people liked him, but eventually the economy worsened and he had to raise taxes. The people didn’t like that, so they revolted once again in 1848.
John Hobson, an English economist, saw imperialism as inevitable, for powers of production outpace consumption resulting in more profit for the mother country (doc 2). The United States was involved in imperialism due to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which made the western hemisphere an American protectorate and their victory in the Spanish-American War making them a Pacific power. Both Europe and America believed imperialism could bring them economic power and capacity. Imperialism was not strictly confined to economics; it also included the political aims of unique states. John Hobson deemed demand for foreign markets for manufacturers and investments was responsible for the adoption of Imperialism as a political policy (doc 2).
I personally think that Henry failed in his foreign policy because he didn’t end up gaining a full grasp on France, this was the main precedence. The initial aim was to capture more land, gaining more land meaning capturing France and knowing Henry’s ambitious mindset, he most probably had his whole mind set on creating an empire and France was a good place to start. Had Henry been what he said he was ‘a warrior king’ he wouldn’t have been used as a toy twice throughout this unsuccessful foreign policy. Charles took advantage of Henry. At the Battle of Pavia, the French were defeated and Francis along with his strongest supporters were held captive.
In England, the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was caused also by aristocratic frustration over the post plague era. English nobles used their power to subdue the peasant fortune through legislation. But the immediate cause to the revolt was the poll tax instated by the government. The peasants reacted and successfully fought back. To stop the madness, King Richard II accepted the peasant demands and eliminated the poll tax (Spielvogel, 280).
The common people were not to be underestimated, their political awareness had grown substantially and they had formulated clear and concise thoughts. They believed the problem lay with the nobles, and how they influenced the king and his decisions. Due to these thought processes we must accept that there was huge amounts of tension between the nobility and commoners, it must have been common practice for nobles to be badmouthed in taverns and other social areas. This sense of injustice and pent up anger must have been building up within all commoners. Initially York would have been their voice but through no fault of his own he could not represent them.
Hence, though peasant life was at its best in its history, all these reforms did for the majority was ignite the hope that more liberating reforms were to come. Unfortunately the untimely assassination of Tsar Liberator by the extremist group, ‘The Peoples Will’ led to the rise in power of Alexander 3rd, who’s views towards the ruling of Russia differed greatly from his fathers. Many of the liberties granted through the reforms were stripped by Alexander 3rd’s own reforms. Peasants control over courts was restricted as courts for government opponents became government controlled. Many government opponents would have been protesting about how unfair the Russian system was towards peasants and hence through trial by jury, they would have been sympathised with.