‘Arminianism was the most important cause of conflict between Crown and Parliament in the years 1625 to 1629’ explain why you agree or disagree with this view. Arminianism was important for the collapse of the relationship between Crown and Parliament to a certain extent, as religious conflicts were an underlying theme throughout the period of 1625 to 1629. Furthermore many Puritans feared that Charles was trying to push towards Arminianism, and so did everything they could to prevent this, causing much tension. However due to Charles’ personal monarchy, he shaped the way he wanted the country to be run thus was the root cause of the deterioration in the Crown-Parliament relationship. The most important factor and root for all of the problems was Charles.
How important was the Duke of Buckingham to the breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament in the years of 1625-1629? Charles’ main advisor and partner in foreign policy was the Duke of Buckingham. Due to Buckingham being a wicked advisor led Charles to a disastrous foreign policy. This propelled him into confrontation with parliament. Buckingham had too much influence with the King; this meant he was seen as one of the main causes to the break down in parliament.
To what extent were Henry VI failings responsible for the outbreak of conflict in 1455? In some ways, Henry VI’s failings could be classed as wholly responsible for the outbreak of conflict in 1455. However, other factors remain and other people can be to blame for the eventual downfall of the monarchical state. Henry VI managed to fail not only in his political leadership but his military leadership as well. If it cannot be pinned on, what A.J Pollard can be quoted as calling, his overall astounding “antipathetic nature towards to the chivalric world his ancestors had adored”, it can definitely be blamed on what A.J Pollard called his “improvident, malleable, vacillating and partisan” personality.
Perrine uses evidence from the poem, as well as pieces of Jerman’s work to argue in favor of an intelligent, shrewd Duke of Ferrara. As readers in the 20th century, we may view the Duke as a senseless and vain character. As the Duke confesses to the murder of his late wife, we immediately peg him as a bad guy, regardless of his title and nobility. Jerman judges the Duke similarly, adding that the Duke must be an idiot for confessing to the Count’s emissary (Perrine, 157). Perrine reminds us that Browning’s “The Last Duchess” is set during the 16th century during a time when nobility ruled over actions.
Atreus himself was involved in the tragedy in which he murdered his brother’s children and served them up as a dish to eat. In the Ancient Greek world, this was seen as placing a curse of the house of Atreus which could provide an explanation to the events that occur within the play. Cassandra calls it the ‘house that hates god, the echoing womb of guilt’ which implies that there will always be terrible things happening there as the gods do not approve of it. This starts the argument that the characters have no control over their fate as Agamemnon was always going to meet a sticky end because of the
To what extent was the reign of Tiberius successful? An evaluation of Tiberius’ success or otherwise is difficult. Ancient sources are quick to point to his failings, right from his accession to the ‘princeps’, which Suetonius claims only came about by default, “for want of any better choice”. Tacitus may not be as theatrical in his treatise on Tiberius, but he too was often critical of the emperor, highlighting how Tiberius was cruel and arrogant, and how Tiberius’ murder of his potential rival, Agrippa Postumus, was callous. Such subjectivity clouds much of the ancient appraisals of Tiberius.
He was said to be too unfit to stand trial because of his mental state. He told police he dug up the women and killed the owner because he was in a haze. In 1968 Ed’s doctor determined he was insane enough to stand trial on November 14 1968 he went on trial for the murders. The trial lasted a week and he was found guilty of first degree murder by reason of insanity and spent the rest of his life in a mental hospital where he died of respiratory failure, cardiovascular disease. As awful as Ed Gein was, some look at him at as a hero.
"What is inaccurate, misleading, and merely tiresome is for modern writers to declare flatly that Richard is guilty or to retail as fact the outworn tale of Thomas More." (Kendall 2002, p 495) It cannot be escaped that Richard the Third remains the prime suspect in the mystery concerning the fate of Edward IV's young sons, Prince Edward and Prince Richard. His guilt came first from the insinuation of rumour and then became sensationalised by the pen of Sir Thomas More in his writing of Richard the Third's Biography. There are two significant reasons for Kendall holding More's work in such contempt, the first being that More wrote his account under pressure from the officious, almost paranoid rule of Henry VII, the first Tudor King who, in
This represents a forshadow to the murders of the children * Lady Macbeth’s actions cause the chaos within the play, her actions (to have the children murdered, etc) ultimately cause her to die of what is believed to be guilt. * Macbeth was told he could not be killed by anyone birthed of woman. However, he was killed by the son who was delivered through cesearan section( “Ripped from the womb”), which is not technically seen as birthing in the play. Therefore making him unborn. * Caliendo 2 * Inpurity, through the Royal Line is caused when King Duncans son is murdered, as it causes the blood line to be cut.
Bobby Zhu Ms. Cruze English 2 January 4, 2012 Macbeth Although Macbeth was loyal to his wife, King and country, he became immoral after his wife force him to kill his own king, which made him feel guilty and influenced him to kill his best friend Banquo and Macduff’s family to cover his guilt from killing the king. Macbeth was immoral when he killed the king when he was at rest “I have done the deed. Didst thou not near a noise?”(65).This quote shows Macbeth has killed the king and asked his wife if she heard the violent noises. Macbeth did not only just kill the king but killed the king while he was asleep. This shows Macbeth is starting to act immoral.