How accurate is it to say that the Yorkists kings restored authority in England in the years 1471-1485? Both Richard III and Edward IV, two of the Yorkist Kings between 1471 and 1485, went some way to restoring royal authority. However, their successes in restoring authority during their reigns were certainly limited. While Edward IV did remove much of the threat of the Lancastrians, he was unable to control the nobility which led to the usurpation of Edward V’s throne by Richard Duke of Gloucester in 1483. Moreover, Richard III was very good at politics, having a lavish court and is good at using propaganda, yet he is highly unpopular among both the people and the nobility; his reign only lasts two years before the throne is usurped by Henry Tudor.
The King used the India Bill as an excuse for a dramatic change in his government. In the beginning of Pitt’s rule, he governed a minority government. This was a great challenge for Pitt as he was young and inexperienced and facing the strong and experienced oppositions of Burke, Fox, North and Portland. However, we can see that with the King’s support, Pitt was able to gain more popularity amongst
The Age of democracy is a response or answer to the Age of Absolutism by the new ideas that spread throughout the world. Although democracy and absolutism had advantages and disadvantages, democracy was a more effective type of government for it limited royal power and protected the rights of the people socially, politically, and economically. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tension arose between the two different types of governments, the democracy and absolute monarchs. During the Age of Absolutism there were many different views on how to run a monarchy. There were so many different monarchs at the time; they all had different ways of running their perspective courts.
The main problem facing Henry was restoring faith and strength in the monarchy. He also had to deal with other claimants, with some of them having a far stronger claim than his own. To deal with this, Henry strengthened the government and his own power, at the expense of the nobles. Henry also had to deal with a treasury that was nearly bankrupt. The English monarchy had never been one of the wealthiest of Europe and even more so after the War of the Roses.
Wolsey was Henry VIII’s chief minister for fifteen years. During this time Wolsey seemed to be more concerned about developing his wealth as opposed to ensuring that the country had effective government in place and making sure Henry was in a sustainable position. The king decided on policy and Wolsey enforced and shaped it. However, from Wolsey’s point of view, he was always the servant to his master, Henry VIII. We will discuss the arguments that support and oppose the view that Wolsey dominated Henry and all policy.
Indeed, that William II granted Flambard the power to initiate laws-notably reintroducing the murdrum fine- highlights a very strong development to central government as it shows a shift away from the singular autocracy of previous kings, such as Cnut. The differing use of a chief minister between William I and II was, therefore, purely down to necessity, as William I had his wife, Mathilda, available for rule in his absence- with Rufus lacking such a figure. Similarly the office flourished under the reign of Richard I, where Hubert Walter’s role as ‘chief justiciar’ involved successful domestic fundraising- involving, amongst other measures, a fairly heavy tax upon fraudulent Jewish moneylenders and the use of scutages-evidence for the increased responsibility and necessity of the role. Richard required significant funding to continue his long-term continental campaign, indeed leaving the country in 1191 and failing to return until the end of his reign in 1199. Moreover the office was concieved and utilised purely due to continental possessions.
His son tried to succeed him and was unable to be a success. So there was a restoration of the Monarchy with Charles II coming to power. Charles II removed the country’s blue laws and restored full power to the Anglican Church. He also developed political parties. There were Tories who supported the king and there were Whigs who supported Parliament.
Through the Bill of Rights the republic became more under criticism and people were not punished for expressing their views. Although there are many reasons for the instability of the Republic the main reason was due to the Versailles Treaty. The way the new government was set up was to have a President who had control over the army, picked the chancellor and could rule by decree. Then was the chancellor who picked the cabinet and then the Reichstag who were elected every four years through proportional representation. This may not be an autocratic government but there are still points that show that the President can control without it being democratically done.
Leading the way was perhaps two of the most powerful kings in the western world, King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany. The march east was mainly because Edessa had fallen but there were other factors as well. Pope Eugenius had recently acquired his office and immediately barred from the city by a communal government. He had not yet been able to enter Rome and could do little himself to help Edessa, but. the manner in which he dealt with the Muslim infidel was likely to be noted.
Although the source explains how Louis was heavily influenced by others around him the source does however show how Louis was an effective absolute monarch. ‘the mistakes I have committed’, ‘some important matters could have been done better not personal interests been put before regard for welfare and power of the state’. Both of these quotations show how it was Louis who solely made the decisions thereby backing up the argument that absolutism was strengthened during 1661-1693.source A agrees with source B as it also shows how absolutism was strengthened in this period. The source is about Louis’s first act as king whereby he states how he will not have an assistant and will do it all himself meaning that he will have complete control over every single government decision that is made. The source is written in 1661 on the day that cardinal Mazarin dies.