Overall I disagree with this view because, even though some parts of domestic policy were successful for Henry VIII and Wolsey, most aspects of domestic policy failed. For example Wolsey used the Courts to get revenge on old enemies as well as giving justice to all people despite their status or wealth. Source 7 suggests that Wolsey was a useless chief minister and only survived because he knew how to please Henry. Source 8 agrees with source 7 but also says that he was successful in 'centralising English politics'. Source 9 was written by George Cavendish and gives a positive view of Wolsey's contribution to domestic policy.
One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
Why did Wolsey fall from power in 1529? Thomas Wolsey was Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor and he held many positions within the government and clergy. Starting off with a humble background Wolsey worked his way up the country’s hierarchy and became the most powerful man in Britain. However it all went wrong for Wolsey and a culmination of factors ended up with his fall from grace in 1529. Wolsey’s rise to power was a mixture of both luck and skill.
How significant was Wolsey in the running of the government in 1514-1529? Wolsey was a great servant to Henry VIII in government from 1514-1529, becoming one of the highest powers in the country. As he was given the title of Lord Chancellor, it meant his power was at probably its greatest point. Henry was said to be a very lazy monarch, and therefore Wolsey would have a significant amount of duties to run the monarchy. Wolsey changed areas of government such as the justice system and revised areas such as finances and parliament structure.
I will be arguing that the achievement of the Attlee Government were remarkable. The sources which I’ll be using show the impact that the Attlee Government had on Britain. From my own knowledge and also the sources, I can show that the achievements of Attlee Government were remarkable as it helped the people of Britain live much better lives. On the contrary it can also show that the achievements weren’t remarkable as it had created many problems for the country. Source 4 is suggesting that since the Attlee government had come into power sorted out many problems in Britain.
"Evaluate the political and social reforms of Augustus.” Augustus’ political and social reforms were drastic and represented a whole new era within ancient Roman society. His reforms comprised of traditional Roman values intertwined with new political and social legislations, and although most of his reforms were successful, some also represented weaknesses, such as the moral legislations which were unaccepted across wide parts of the empire. Although Augustus’ political and social reforms were generally well-accepted and effective, a minority were quite unpopular thus limiting their success in some aspects. The first reforms of Augustus began with the Settlement of 27 BC and proved to be quite successful, although they did caused some
Representative democracy has been able to flourish in recent years as elected individuals who make decisions are arguably more knowledgeable than the electorate themselves. There is a greater sense of accountability to elected individuals to the public and more responsibility taken by those in power to protect the interests of the people by limiting the power of the government. Arguably, the question posed is of popular interest today as Britain has been described as a largely consultative democracy. A representative democracy is advantageous compared to a direct democracy as elected MPs are of sufficient educational backgrounds and are more superior in knowledge at making the most effective decisions. Arguably the elected MPs are the reason that a representative democracy flourishes with the elected MPs superseding the knowledge of the public.
Ancient interpretations are negative and criticise his religious reforms. Modern interpretations are more subjective, though they are still quite negative. Like any ruler, Akhenaten had aspects of his reign he did well, and other aspects that were not done so well. Many of Akhenaten's criticisms are based on his massive religious reforms. One aspect of his reign that is often seen in a positive light is the artistic reform that occurred in the Amarna period.
To what extent was royal authority weak in the period from 1540 to 1547? Royal authority was not as strong as it was at the beginning of Henry’s reign but it was still significantly more weak than strong towards the end. This was due to Henry’s failing heath which lead to him being manipulated and also because of the fact that Henry started to make both slow and irrational decisions which further affected how well England was ran during this period. Factions were something that greatly affected how well Henry ran England because of their interfering nature that some may have found difficult to control. Henry on the other hand though was very capable of handling the factions and it was proven that he always got to make the ultimate final decision after the factions attempted to do something, thus proving he was still in control at this point of some matters.
English Successes in Foreign Policy in the Period 1511-1525 did not outweigh the failures. However in the years 1511-1521 did not outweigh the failures however if you include the later years, including the 2nd French war and the events that followed after 1521, foreign policy was a failure for Henry and England. Despite this the early years showed promise for Henry with the successes outweighing the failures. An example of this is demonstrated in Source 4 where it describes the Treaty of London as “The Greatest Triumph” for England during Wolsey’s time in power as the King’s right hand man, where he arranged for twenty rulers to sign a treaty of perpetual peace in 1518. The source also goes on to describe Wolsey’s successes of the Field of Cloth of Gold which most pleased Henry as well as the meeting with Charles V at Sandwich and Gravelines in 1520.