It didn’t help matters when he had a mental breakdown in 1453 which rendered him useless to the country and left the throne to Richard of York to become the protector. He was seen as a weak king as he did not like to fight on the battlefield and many regents called into service which suggests that Henry was not capable to ruling as king. Corruption within the local and national governments was partially caused by favouritism, an example of someone the King had shown particular favour upon would be William De La Pole (the duke of Suffolk) who had later fallen out of favour by opposing the King in his views towards the war in France. He had later found himself banished, and ended up washed up on the shores of Devon, beheaded. The main reason for his banishment being that he had wanted to continue with the war in France whereas the king wanted peace.
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.
There was a massive loss of resources and income after the recline of land in France, leading to the powerful men of England to take arms in aid of their lords this lead to the battle of St Albans The weakness of royal power can be pin pointed to the king. Henry was never a fit king to rule a country such as England; he was not the man his father Henry V would ever be. And this caused a sense of unrest to the people of England. This can be reflected by his counterproductive peace policy with France, that lead to the loss of royal lands that his father had once gained. Henry was supported and manipulated by William de la Pole, Edmund Beaufort and his French wife, Margaret of Anjou.
How successful was Edward VI in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470? Edward IV enjoyed successes and also failures in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470. Edward had some successes in dealing with over mighty subjects, for example, his marriage to Elisabeth Woodville shows that he was not controlled by an over powering Warwick. This was important as it showed both Warwick and the rest of the country that he was not controlled by Warwick and could make his own decisions. Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor.
The Articles of Confederation – DBQ The Articles of Confederation failed to provide proper leadership and government to the United States economically, politically, and socially. The Confederation’s lack of control over their states led to disarray and confusion among trade and taxes. There was also an issue convincing state officials to participate in the government as well as settling disputes between the states and even other countries. The Articles of Confederation had problems getting a hold on their economic situation. The nation was quite poor from the Revolution and had loans from the French that it was unable to pay back.
Source 4 and source 6 both illustrate the problems leaders like Maximillian and Ferdinand posed to Henry. In source 4, the two are described to have been ‘bribed’ by the French leader in order for them to ‘disown treaty obligations to England’ during Henry’s attempt to invade France in 1514. Source 6 also states that England were still at the ‘mercy’ of monumental ‘shifts’ in European politics, even though they had just been at the heart of European diplomacy as a result of the Treaty of London. The message that these sources convey demonstrates how England were restricted, and inevitably rendered unsuccessful, by the lack of cooperation offered across Europe. Further evidence for this can be found in Ferdinand’s manipulation of Henry in the 1513 campaign against
Absolutist power is always dangerous in the hands of a monarch as well as in the hands of a movement (in this situation, the National Assembly). Freedom of speech opinion, religion and press were in France before the revolution, but disappeared because of it. And they blamed it all on their presents
"(Dictionnaire Philosophique) The French government did their best to keep Voltaire's writings out of the hands of the common people, however his views and philosophies became widely known in France. Most of the people in France realized that a change was needed but, those in power had no plans of giving away their power or improving the lives of the people. Thus, many called for a revolution. Voltaire’s influence on the new French government is seen in the balance of power between the National Assembly, Legislative Assembly, and other bodies of politicians. It can also be seen in the separation of powers into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government in the United
This led to further economic collapse that hit its climax 1777. So in order for the government to dig its way out of this huge hole was for it to create new taxes, Calonne attempted to do this by side stepping the parliament which only resulted in a Nobles revolt and a call for an estates general. Brienne became the new minister to replace Calonne, however although his many attempts to try to fix the national debt and end the crisis he was sabotaged by Louis XVI and disgraced. Once again France was at this fragile point in its economy and with the high national debt and the high taxes that the 3rd estate, and second estate were paying it made it the perfect environment for a
Naturally, there was a fair amount of plain luck; what the previous powers had achieved the wish to live in peace without wars and major conflicts. Although, at this time the government was extremely fragile and changed quite often, it was still the government that divided the French nation the least. The Third Republic in France did attract the support of the Frenchmen, because in the constituencies the interests of the local people were protected and their problems and thoughts were more important than the whole nation’s problems. The local committees were more concerned with the welfare of their own people than the nationwide problems. This means that people did not have any major issues with the regime of the Third Republic and, therefore, had no reason to have uprisings or any disturbances against the Republic, this probably contributed to the long life of the Third Republic.