Ideologically, Britian and the Americans had different views on everything. From their government to their religion. King James liked to think he ran the English churches which the English did not like. There were little things like economical views that were causing the American colonies to separate from the British. John Hughes and Benjamin Franklin came up with the Stamp Act which many people did not like.
There are many ways that Gladstone’s First Ministry could be considered to be successful. Firstly, Gladstone had a passion to pacify Ireland, this was because he feared other countries would use Ireland as an invasion base to attack Britain. Also Irish nationalists called Fenians tried to seize power of churches, which lead to the ‘Disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Ireland 1869’ The terms of the act allowed the church to govern itself as it was no longer legally established by parliament. It was seen as so liberal it was radical and extended the principal of religious liberalism to Ireland. Another successful act passed involving Ireland was the ‘Irish Land Act 1870’ Tenants were now given compensation for eviction and there were limitations of landlord power, it was a step to improving Ireland, even though it was not as successful as the previous act, and had more opposition as Irish nationalists wanted British landlords to leave Ireland completely.
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
Henry had little available soldiers in England due to the Wars of the Roses, or the necessary financial resources to fund such a campaign. Instead it seemed more appropriate for him to work on constructing links between his country and other he deemed as good partners for England. An example of one of these links created by Henry was the Medina del Campo, an allegiance with Spain uniting the nations against the possible French threat. The treaty was first negotiated in 1489, with the arranged marriage of Henry’s son, Arthur, and Catherine of Aragon of Spain, cementing the deal. Another example was Henry’s immediate truce with Scotland in 1486, when a three year peace treaty was signed, which was only eventually ended due to the death of James III in 1488 and his successor, the 15 year old James IV, whose anti-Anglo attitude disrupted any potential amnesty between the states until 1497 when the treaty of Ayton was signed.
However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions. Frederick William IV was partially responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament as he was unwilling to accept the ‘crown from the gutter’. William IV was aware that acceptance of the leadership may lead to war with Austria. Austria had no wish to see a united Germany and wanted to keep it weak and divided in order to dominate. Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state.
The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
On the contrary this shows that the disputes between these factions may imply that the King was weak and not in control thus significantly threatening the stability of government . However the rivalry between factions could not be seen as an significant threat to Henrys government because a more important factor jeopardised the stability of the government. Foreign Policy dominates during the last years of Henrys VIIs reign. The difficulties in Scotland contributed greatly to financial complications thus effecting the stability of the government and shadowing the rivalry between reformist and conservatives which would suggest that the threat was not major. Henry was exposed to the pull of the factions but a new aristocratic approach to the government strengthened the conservative faction however with the arrest of Duke of Norfolk (1547) and the dismissal of Gardiner from the Privy Chamber the reformists gained the much needed advantage .
The source is from a modern book named ‘Britain and Ireland, from Home Rule to Independence’ and so you could argue the source is to be given some validity however given that it is a modern text you could question some of the information it presents as it is not a primary source of information. The source suggests that Asquith’s policy and attitude was not proactive enough, therefore criticising his methods. The source states that this as well as his ‘blunder’ of including Ulster in the Home Rule Bill of 1912, which subsequently caused the first and immediate threat of Civil War in Ireland was just some of the error. This source therefore supports this view to a great extent because of this evidence. Source 8 does not support this view, however the only evidence supporting it being that tensions between Nationalists and Unionists was high and that because of their differences Ireland was preparing for a Civil War, as suggested by source 7.
Why did BPC invasion of England fail? On the 5th July 1745 Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charles) set afoot in the British Isles; ot conquer England and take back his rightfully deserved throne.But his conquest failed, there were three aspects to his failure:Strategy, Leadership and (Quality of) Support. Strategy is long-term planning or short-term tactics. This invasion's chance of success was severly hampered, by the indecicive army the prince however was not the main culprit, rather the disagreement between him and his commanders e.g; The incident when they had captured Derby and could not decide whether to procced or to retreat.Bonnie Prince Charlie let down the invasion by not properly organizing support from;The French(precisely), the Clan Chiefs or the English and Welsh Jacobites. Another example is when Charles delayed 6 weeks at Edinburgh to allow George II to regain hardened troops from Holland, if this hadn't happened then Charles would have been able to strike much more fear in the Londoners.
It was neither desirable nor even possible to eliminate the cause of faction. It was not desirable because it would require ‘destroying liberty’ and so the remedy ‘was worse then the disease.’ It was not possible because ‘the causes of faction are sown in the nature of