How far would you agree that conflict between England and Spain was inescapable? (1558 - 88) In some respects, conflict between England and Spain was unlikely and there are many factors contributing to this. One reason for this was a very personal factor and links to Elizabeth’s personality. The Queen of England was a much calmer monarch than her predecessor and father, Henry viii. Her way of dealing with foreign affairs was very different to her Father’s in that Elizabeth tended to be more methodical in contrast to Henry who settled misunderstanding with battles and warfare.
Finally, in a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Roman Catholics would no longer be seen as the overwhelming and threatening majority but rather as cooperating fellow citizens, thus transforming Protestant views of fear and loathing. Indeed as Lord Castlereagh stated "Strength and confidence will encourage liberality". Indeed, following the passing of the Act of Union, Prime Minister Pitt was expected to come forward with the proposal of Catholic Emancipation (which finally passed in 1829). Yet the union between the two countries was not as evident as it should have been. Ireland was still being treated as a separate country and a 'half-alien dependency'.
How far was pre-Conquest England a prosperous and well- governed kingdom? I think that pre-conquest England was to an extent a well-governed and prosperous kingdom, because there were few problems with some of the economic, political and social aspects. However there were some victorious moments with these aspects also. The economy of pre-conquest England was not good nor bad. In theory the whole Kingdom was the kings estate, including his home farms, were the royal demesne.
Two examples that make this clear are the vast amount of broadsheets, pamphlets and even cartoons, for those who were illiterate that were distributed quickly, significantly contributing to the success of the Reformation, and the way reformers such as Luther and Calvin were not able to be suppressed by the church in the same quick to act manner as it had done with heretics in a pre-Gutenberg Press era. Due to an extension of literacy among laypeople and the reliance of record keeping in government, cheaper and more efficient ways of writing were sought after in the west. Replacements for both expensive parchment and skilled scribes, who in their small numbers began to command increasingly high salaries. Western Europe began to import paper from the East and finally a reduction in costs was achieved. The next phase of trying to find a new and more cost effective way to print was trial and error, including printed books via woodcuts, however as each page needed its own woodcut this was only marginally better than using a scribe.
How successful was Gladstone’s first ministry? Gladstone could be seen as relatively successful in his second ministry, as he managed to keep most of the groups in England at the time, on his side. The middle class, working class and non-conformists all stayed firmly by his side with the removal of unjustified privilege, continuation of free trade and Gladstone’s religious liberalism. However, there were other groups he didn’t manage to keep on his side with the landed aristocracy and the Anglicans, scared of Gladstone’s reforms in political liberalism, the increased option of meritocracy and religious liberalism. One of Gladstone’s main areas for reform was in Ireland.
By the time of conquest of Granada Moors had been living in Spain for centuries, and The other rulers attitude towards them ( convincia ) helped all the Spanish states to sustain peace, but he rise of Ottoman empire was an alert for the west , but the question is was the fear of another rising Muslim empire the main motive for Ferdinand and Isabella to conquest Granada or there was other motives that played a bigger part in Ferdinand and Isabella’s mind. Throughout history, religion always have had the biggest or if not one of the main roles in conflicts, although the moors at the time were very much part of Spain as they’ve been living there for couple of hundred years but for most Spanish rulers they were still the people who came in and invaded Spain and still have control over parts of it. So at end of the day they and their religion were hated. It should be noted both Ferdinand and Isabel were vey committed Catholics as well, so kicking Muslims out and returning it to be a Christian state would have been a great achievement. The Moors influence was getting weakened and Boabdil actions made everything worse He was the son of the sultan Abu l-Hasan Ali, and as it sometimes happens with princes, Boabdil was restless to gain power.
Out of the eight main points of the settlement, I found that Elizabeth had rules that would please both Protestants and Catholic’s. For example one of her new laws was too be in charge of the church (pleasing Protestants), but not called ‘Head’ and was supported by bishops (pleasing Catholics). Another example of a Catholic based law was some church courts would remain. This is seen as pro-catholic because Protestants were against any form of church courts. Yet, the settlement was clearly not entirely favourable to Catholics.
How significant was the Council of Trent in reviving the fortunes of the Catholic Church? The Council of Trent was significant in reviving the fortunes of the Catholic Church as it established clear definition of Catholic doctrine and also helped to uproot abuses present within the papacy and the lower clergy. However, there were other factors that helped to revive the fortunes of the Catholic Church following the Council of Trent, including rulers such as Philip II and Sigismund III, the enforcement of the Inquisition and Index in Rome and Spain, and also the work of the Jesuits who helped to reconvert Protestants and spread the Catholic faith. The Council of Trent occurred over three sessions between 1545-1563. The first two sessions focused on establishing clear definitions of Catholic doctrine, which helped revive the fortunes of the Catholic Church as they refused to submit to the Protestant challenge of their faith and so the Church emerged confident and undefeated.
“Isabella and Ferdinand successfully strengthened the authority and power of the Crown in “Spain” by taming the Castilian aristocracy.” To what extent do you agree with this view? Though it is unquestionable that Isabella and Ferdinand did increase the authority of the Crown within “Spain” by 1516. It is, however, more debatable whether the taming of the aristocracy was the sole reason. Other factors such as the unifying of faith within Spain through the exile of the Jews and Muslims, along with their personal style of peripatetic monarchy, surely contributed greatly to their success. The issue of the aristocracy must be addressed first; their influence should not be underestimated, coming from high social backgrounds and many of which held a position in government they generally had at least some form of power, either socially or with direct influence within parliament.
Occupied with other matters, the British Empire wasn’t able to completely control the colonies and as a result they developed independent governments. While still only the wealthy could hold positions, the government was fairly democratic. In addition to the large voting percentage, many states formed assemblies that were similar to the House of Commons in England. These were effective because they better represented the people and put a check on the power of the Governor. Further advances in free speech rights also made their way into the colonies.