Previous kings had only used the Chamber erratically in times of war however Edward decided to make it more systematic, which in turn siphoned in much more money. This point does support how Edward was a good king because all sources show that it was his idea, not his exchequer. Edwards new policy showed that he managed the royal finances well because it meant that more revenue was coming in therefore he could run the country, as well as start paying of Henry’s debts. Additionally it meant that he could live of his own because he did not have to ask parliament to raise a tax. I think that this was possibly the most important cause to
b) Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why recent reforms can be said to have made the House of Lords more legitimate. Recent reforms have made the House of Lords more legitimate, the 2001 reforms made by Blair’s government meant that that most hereditary peers were no longer part of the Lords – this meant that the people in the Lords were not their because of their blood but because of their expertise and interest in subjects relating to discussing inside the chamber. Blair, by removing hereditary peers made the Lords more accountable and more professional. The Lords become a real discussion based chamber with key figures from around the country invited to discuss and debate topics which meant something to them. However, the Lords have always had a strong hold on the Commons, overriding them more times than the government’s own backbenchers.
The messages sent from the famous jumps of Sam Patch were the beginning of a new of democracy, and a fulfillment to the true meaning of the word equality. In the early 1800s there was already a change being made to American politics. Soon after the war of 1812 it was made a point to put some restrictions on presidency because the president had too much power (Pettengill). Distributing the power evenly amongst the other branches of government paved the way to a more independent American government, and created early ideas of a two party system. These early ideas made it possible for the different views of the rich and working class to have their own set representation as needed when capitalism, or free market enterprise, and common wealth made its way into American economy.
The levellers were radical groups active in London in the late 1646 which gained a lot of their support from the army. This group was very popular among men of “middling sort” who were unrewarded in seventeenth century English politics. The leaders of these groups were John Lilburn and Richard Overton. Their main aim was for religious toleration and to also replace the monarchy and the House of Lords with a single representative chamber elected by the male leads of the households. There manifesto was the agreement of people which favoured the ordinary citizens and wanted them to gain more rights than rich property owners.
All parts of the Earldoms were controlled by the monarch. This organised system demonstrates that there was a very clear hierarchy in pre-conquest England. This would have made the country easy to run, especially for the kings of different countries such as Cnut the Great who was also king of Denmark, Norway and parts of Sweden. This indicates that England was a well governed kingdom because the kingdom was divided and each piece of land would have a local aristocrat to manage it. However, there was one main problem to the pre-conquest system that could have caused instability and chaos to the country and to the king.
In England, men of property controlled government. Property ownership was the key to achieving political power, since people who owned property were believed to have a vested interest in ruling a society properly; that is, they would rule for the benefit of those with and without property. In addition, voting rights were limited by one’s religion (voters were Protestant and members of the state church) and one’s legal status (freemen could vote; servants and slaves could not). Only a very few men in England could vote or hold
The Age of democracy is a response or answer to the Age of Absolutism by the new ideas that spread throughout the world. Although democracy and absolutism had advantages and disadvantages, democracy was a more effective type of government for it limited royal power and protected the rights of the people socially, politically, and economically. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tension arose between the two different types of governments, the democracy and absolute monarchs. During the Age of Absolutism there were many different views on how to run a monarchy. There were so many different monarchs at the time; they all had different ways of running their perspective courts.
The Great Council had been previously used in medieval periods by monarchs but it hadn’t been continued by other fifteen century monarchs. Using the Great Council allowed Henry VII to hear the opinion and suggestions of his closest advisors. These advisors were chosen by the King for their abilities, rather than the amount of land they owned or their titles. This was a new development brought in by Henry VII as the other late medieval kings would employ those in government based on their titles. Henry VII used this new plan to insure that he could have a strong government as the people who worked for him possessed useful and relevant skills.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson explained how governments should not be overthrown for petty reasons, but he believed the King of Great Britain had taken the situation too far. The New England economy was growing, and the colonist gradually began to think and act independently from England. Therefore, England initiated Parliament
Andrew Hadfield, an English professor at the University of Sussex, wrote: "Shakespeare belonged to an expanding generation of writers who had received a classical education but had no obvious place in the social hierarchy. It is hardly surprising that many turned to republican political ideas and values, especially grammar school boys such as Shakespeare, who had to make a career in London by producing what a wider public wanted."(100). This indicates that Shakespeare was a speaker for the people and wrote what the general public felt and wanted to hear. Hadfield also comments that Shakespeare’s theme of a republic was a similar interest to the people of Britain: “ In choosing the foundational event of the Roman republic as his topic, Shakespeare in fact showed a remarkably shrewd sense of what was likely to appeal to his patron’s political tastes.”(101). Shakespeare’s plays reflect republican ideals of justice and fairness in society.