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.
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.
Oliver Cromwell became the most important general on the Parliamentarian side and Prince Rupert on the Royalist side. Oliver Cromwell was famous for his well thought out tactics and his well disciplined army, where as Rupert, the kings nephew, made decisions without thinking them through and was not always in full control of his men. Before the war, Oliver Cromwell was worrying whether or not his army would want to fight the king because in those days it was said that the king is Gods representative. The king also had much more money because he was supported by some very wealthy men, so he had more money. However, as the war went on, the king’s money dwindled away, and Parliament raised taxes, therefore they had more money than the king.
Henry also needed to control the nobility because if he didn’t, or only managed to control a minority, he could have a revolution, and Nobles, together, had a lot more money and power than the king himself. Firstly he gave the Earl of Surrey his lands back, bits at a time to ensure his loyalty, while having him as a key figurehead in the north to stop rebellions, since the north largely supported Richard and Henry needed to find a way of controlling them. Also Henry didn’t get rid of all the Yorkist nobles in the council, only those who thought against him. He did this so that he wouldn’t have a full scale Yorkist rebellion on his hands, but he couldn’t have people who wanted him dead and had fought against him on his council. As well as this, Henry needed to be effective at getting England onto a secure financial footing.
With each level of this hierarchy had its own leader. For example the sheriffs managed the shires under the Earls. This system shows that there was a very clear peaking order in pre- conquest England; this would have made the country a lot easier to manage because each division of land had a local lord to manage it. However, the power of the Earls was one of the issues that this system had. When the Earls combined their power it was enough to overpower the King, this meant that if they worked together they would be able to overcome him without an issue at all.
Another reason America had an advantage over Britain was that the English citizens were tired of war. The war had begun to turn into years and citizens were getting tired of paying taxes and just the war in general. In my opinion one of the biggest advantages the colonists had was how great a leader George Washington was. American soldiers were outnumbered and not as well trained as the English soldiers, but because of Washington’s brilliance and strategy it helped the colonists prevail over Britain. On the other hand Britain also had many advantages over the Americans.
Some nobles (William Stanley) were unhappy with this reward as they saw it as an empty reward, they wanted land or money instead. Henry VII did not appoint many new nobles or promote many nobles through his time. This meant that if you were promoted in Henry’s reign it was seen as a massive honour. This benefitted Henry economically also as he could take 100% of the money from the land instead of a small percentage that the nobles would have given him. Henry managed to consolidate his throne well by overthrowing his opposition.
‘The impact of the british empire was more positive than negative.’ How far do you agree with this statement? At its peak, the British Empire was the largest empire that the world had ever known, because of its huge scale it undoubtedly had both positive and negative effects on many. The empire itself had hugely positive effects on the economy of Britain at the time and helped trade between countries within the empire prosper, allowing Britain to buy and sell exotic products such as tea and other spices which would have been previously unattainable. By having such a large empire Britain not only gained Wealth and prosperity but also power and safety through their allies. Despite the numerous positives for Britain many other colonies felt the negative effects of the British empire sparking many conflicts in the past 200 years.
This discovery of marital strategy didn’t bankrupt the monarchy, formed allies, and influenced “inherited family status” at the local levels. Leading by example, Isabella and Ferdinand married off their own children to numerous countries throughout Europe as well as their children’s children creating a legacy. Although wars with Spain certainly existed, this method displaced the need for military interference because “it was far cheaper to gain land by inheritance than by war.” For example, Philip II “was bankrupt by the time of his death in 1598” because “wars sucked the royal treasury nearly dry of all gold and silver pouring in from the Americas.” The royal couple’s eldest daughter, Isabella was married to King Afonso of Portugal, eldest son John was married to Margaret of Habsburg (Austria), daughter Joanna was married to Philip I of Habsburg, daughter Maria married Afonso’s oldest brother Manuel of Portugal, and youngest daughter Catherine was married to Henry VIII of England. Each marriage was sensibly
Henry had spent a lot of money on wars in Europe, expensive clothes and food so he wanted to make up the loss by being head of the church. This meant Henry would have more money for himself. Finally, Henry made himself head of the English Church because he knew that previous kings had been unhappy with the amount of power the Pope had over the English church so he decided he wanted complete control over his country. Henry wanted power to divorce without the Pope's consent and in general Henry wanted more power over England's land. Henry wanted a divorce from Catherine of Aragon because she could not produce a son.