How effective a king was Henry 7th? Henry 7th is very well know as the conqueror of Richard 3rd and father of Henry 8th, but how effective a king was he? He had to secure the Tudor dynasty, secure the nobility, keep financially stable and strengthen his foreign position without appearing weak. He dealt with these problems on the whole, extremely well, suggesting that he was an effective king, but he made some mistakes to. Henry 7th was ruthless in securing the Tudor dynasty.
Therefore I believe Lord Curzon was indeed a successful viceroy. Of the Sources, source two is intended to convey Lord Curzon’s tenure as Viceroy in the most positive manner .It lists his positive qualities that made him “India’s best ruler under the raj” . However given the nature of the British Empire in countries such as India the main priority is not always the well fair of the country. For instance many believe Britain was draining India of its wealth rather than helping develop the country, Dadabhai Naoroji's created this “drain theory”. Britain had used combination of force as well as divides and conquers to control India Up until this point.
All payments went towards the king, this would've also made the Earls not feel powerful enough, especially Harold Godwin who was seen as the most powerful man in England, but theoretically he wasn’t. However the Economy was well governed because the trade increased, which encouraged both the growth of towns and foreign contacts, this demonstrates that England were still involved in trade, which was good for the economy. However the economy was not very well developed especially compared to the Byzantine Empire and Muslim world. Those economies were massive, especially when compared to England’s. Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned.
I personally believe that pre- conquest England was a fairly well governed and a relatively prosperous kingdom. Things that suggest that England was well- governed and prosperous pre- conquest included the division of land, trade, the hierarch and currency. The frequent invasions and towns also suggest this. The possible threat to 6the Danegeld, the king of the Earls, and the countries underdeveloped economy all suggest that England was less prosperous and more unstable. The land was split into several parts.
This made his position a weak one, forcing Edward to bind himself to Godwin, as the Earl of Wessex and most powerful man in England at this time. Earl Godwin was the only member of the witan offering to support Edward. The reasons for this are unclear though it is likely Godwin felt that he could exert influence over the inexperienced King and therefore gain yet more power over England. Despite the odds being stacked against him, Edward took the English throne from the Danish royal family and established himself as a strong and wise King. Clearly his success had to be dependant on a number of weighty advantages, his growing up in Exile for example.
With the replacement of the Girondins faction in 1793, the Jacobins had complete control of the National Convention, and France as a nation. Both the Jacobins and Robespierre wanted quick change. The ‘quick change’ desired by these individuals was a monumental task that proved nearly impossible considering the highly divided 600-member legislature in France at the time. Still, the driving force behind the Terror would not have been present if not for the Jacobins Club. Even though the Jacobins were completely controlling the government after the arrest of the Girondins, they still feared that the Revolution would fail if they failed making them very unstable.
The king did not have the means to raise and keep an army himself and had to rely on these nobles to defend the nation; The Huguenots, who since the 1598 Edict of Nantes by Henry IV, held the rights to bear arms and to build fortifications in certain locations. To overcome these obstacles King Louis XIV One of the more unsubtle acts of this consolidation of power was
Why did Parliament win the Civil War? The First Civil War lasted several years and it was not clear who was to win. In the end however, Parliament did succeed, and the King failed. The generals were a major factor, they inspired there army to fight well and bravely and had to work out the tactics that were to be used. Oliver Cromwell became the most important general on the Parliamentarian side and Prince Rupert on the Royalist side.
William Pitt came to power in December 1783, becoming the youngest prime minister in British history. Pitt’s authoritative nature right from the outset served him in good stead, and he exercised a dominance over both parliament and his monarch which very few subsequent Prime Ministers have managed. Pitt also supported parliamentary reform right from the off, and he believed that parliament at that moment in time had become too resistant to reform and the King held too much power. He was a brave man, knowing that the King detested parliamentary reform, he submitted a general proposal for which it was easier to get support for than a specific scheme. He also wanted to increase the British electorate by 30%.
He is supposed to have the most control, able to keep his people in line however due to his state he was not able to accomplish any of these necessary attributions of a king, therefore this would help contribute to the civil war outbreak, as a weak character in the position of a king isn’t good. In addition, Henry had a trait of having favorites among his nobility. This is shown by he gave out patronage to his favorites, Somerset and Suffolk, they were also made dukes in 1448. This would cause problems inside his nobility. Dukes were usually direct relatives of the king, however Suffolk and Somerset were not, where as Richard of York was.