In terms of Royalist weaknesses, Charles and his personality definitely proved to be one of the most visible. The kings speech defect burdened his communication skills, critical for being a strong leader. Charles' indecisive and stubborn nature meant that he was unwilling to compromise, resulting in the failure to achieve loyalty from his own army combined with Charles' religious orientation made life hard for the Royalists from the start of the first Civil War. Early military failures played another key role in the Royalist defeat for example on the 5th September 1642 when Charles left London to prepare for the first battle of Edgehill. Moreover the battle ended in stalemate and the Royalists progressed on to London.
This eventually lost him the support of York, after countless amounts of times that York attempted to prove his loyalty, which played a big part in his downfall because York was a very important noble. It is arguable to say that there wouldn’t have been conflict if Henry had been able to keep the support of York, which is true because if he’d kept York on side, York would never have attempted to get the throne he would have just been happy to be part of the king’s council. Had Henry kept York loyal, the battle of St.
“King Charles is totally to blame for the civil war.” Do I Agree? The English Civil War took place in 1642 when Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham. The split between Charles and Parliament was such that neither side was willing to back down over the principles that they held and war was inevitable as a way in which all problems could be solved. The country split into those who supported the king and those who supported Parliament. Some historians say that Charles is totally to blame for this war, while some say that parliament is totally to blame for it.
Many factors affected the royalist defeat in the civil war; most causes are interrelated between the weakness of the royalist party and the strength of the parliamentarians. One of the most notable weaknesses of the royalist side was the inadequate leadership of Charles i. Charles proved to be a very weak leader in the years 1642- 1646 as he failed to solve a hand full of problems which escalated at great speed. However Charles himself was a causing factor towards the defeat, this was mainly down to his personality. Due to being so distant from the court, communication was a major problem. This was only escalated by Charles’ speech impediment which also made him seem weak and impractical, and meant that in the case of an emergency, a solution would always be harder to reach.
Therefore the source suggests that Henry’s inability to enforce the ‘newly-imposed head tax’ contributed not only to a lack of funds for wars with France, but also his failure to combat the tax boycott ‘gave [James IV] hope of undertaking something’. Source 2 confirms what is being said in source 1 as it demonstrates that the threat was real, accounting how James did actually invade, taking advantage of Henry's absence, which confirms the suspicions of the Privy Council in source 1. Source 1 also implies that Henry may have had to abandon any plans made to invade France due to the possible Scottish invasion, 'against King Henry in his absence'. Yet the situation was double edged sword; if Henry chose to ignore the potential threat of a Scottish invasion and stayed to campaign in France, he risked the former actually coming true. If however, he decided to return to England in order to discourage James IV from attacking, he would lose progress in France.
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.
Do you agree with the view expressed in Source K, that the diplomatic situation was the main reason for Henry’s failure to attain an annulment from Catherine by 1529? It is very clear that there was more than one factor that caused some difficulties for Henry VIII’s failure to gain an annulment from his marriage to Catherine by 1529. However, it is possible that the diplomatic situation has role in his failure, as it didn't help his case of getting an annulment and caused an impediment to his situation. Since the Pope was under the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, it made Henry’s situation more difficult due to the fact that he needed the Pope to grant his annulment, and what made it worse was that Charles V was the nephew of Catherine and had a great input into any of the Pope’s decisions. Source K argues that the Diplomatic situation was a highlight of Henry’s failed attempt to gaining an annulment.
In 1646, Charles’ hopes of winning the civil war were beyond bleak following the crushing defeating at the battle of Naseby. Curiously however, the majority of the population wanted the reinstatement of Charles. Rule by Parliament’s ruthless County Committees were arguably worse than that endured during Charles’ Personal Rule. After four years of ‘a war without an enemy’ people sought the peace and stability associated with the monarch figurehead: Charles. Additionally, suspicions had risen of radical parliamentarians and the people were reliant on Charles’ return to stop this.
The commencement of the English Civil War was due to political conflicts between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists, and took place from 1642 to 1651. The first war was from 1642 to1646 and the second was from 1648 to 1649, which was between the supporters of King Charles I, and the supporters for the Long Parliament. The third and final war was from 1649 to 1651, which had seen fighting between the supporters of Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. During these major wars, what were the events that occurred that made them such successes or failures? With the introduction of Charles I in 1625, Scotland and England had relative peace.
The idea of Nationalism between the British North American colonies did not seem logical in the ninetieth century due to the vast cultural differences spanning from east to west. John A. MacDonald, leader of the Tories, thought otherwise. With a great understand of sociology and seeing the “bigger picture”, he was able to convince the colonies to come together. The illegal Alabama and Trent Affairs, as well as the raids by the angry American-Irishmen proved to be some of the external pressure for confederation. Political Deadlock initiated internal pressure resulting in multiple conferences to discuss this great coalition.