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.
England managing to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and how Wolsey was very sly and flexible in his diplomacy and arguments which disagree with the statement, for example it could also be seen that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly when compared with the few benefits it brought to England. Henry’s allies often let him down and were much more interested in their own aims and not so much of England’s. A point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that England had successfully delivered a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is seen in source 4, in which M.D. Palmer writes about how Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514, and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518.
How stable was the Weimar Republic 1924-29 The real increase in prosperity experienced by many, and the cultural vitality of the period, gave support to the view that these years were indeed the ‘golden years’. However, historians have generally tended to question this stability because it was in fact limited in scope therefore these years could be seen as ‘deceptive stability’ also. Any disruption to the world’s trade or finance markets was bound to have a particularly damaging effect on the uncertain German economy. In reality, the middle years of the Weimar Republic were stable only in comparison with the other periods before and after. Weimar’s condition suggests that the fundamental problems inherited from war and the crisis has not been resolved.
Then identify how source evidences statement, perhaps quote or refer closely to source. Sources 1, 2 and 3 all support the statement to an extent, source and 1 and 2 for similar reasons. Source 1 is from a contemporary historian. Polydore Vergil is usually quite favourable towards Henry VIII, and therefore his rather critical assessment of the instability of the north and thereby the Scottish threat of invasion is all the more accurate. 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’.
How far do Sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Henry was successful in becoming Arbiter of Europe in the years 1514-1522? Both source 1 and source 2 suggest that Henry was successful in becoming Arbiter of Europe as they illustrate him giving England power and success although Source 2 highlights Wolsey’s success rather than Henry’s, however, source 3 suggests that Henry was very unsuccessful at becoming Arbiter and made conflicts between countries even worse. Source 1 suggests that Henry was completely successful in his role as Arbiter of Europe. ‘If not the equal of mighty France and Spain, at least the makeweight that could tip the balance between them.’ shows that England took a central position within the countries and had the power to keep them at peace which was the aim of Henry’s role. ‘… made provision for perpetual peace in Europe.’ suggests that there will be an on going peace in Europe which means that Henry was very successful in his role.
Whilst that was at the back of Edward's mind, he also had the inhibitory situation of Warwick and Clarence becoming over-mighty subjects. Despite the many disadvantages Edward was placed at he demonstrated at times impressive determination and resilience to them, such as the expansion of his power base which placed him in a stronger position, and the improvement of the crown’s finances. In fact when one is comparing Edward’s progress in comparison to Henry VI success at being king, he seems far better and more deserving of his title, due to Henry’s complete lack of governing success which Edward himself eventually managed to regain control over. A definite and early landmark which supports the fact that Edward was in fact partially successful in restoring royal authority is the fact that in 1461 Edward was completely victorious over the Lancastrians in The Battle of Towton. The Yorkists created an utter rout, where the opposition was overwhelmed and fled, and thousands of Lancastrians were killed as well as defeated.
He disagrees with parliament stating that the King must ask permission from them to collect money at his own accord, he says they are “utterly mistaken to suppose that the monarch cannot raise taxes from his subjects at his own pleasure”. At this time it was likely that ship money would be a cause for dispute as it was being collected illegally during peace time and from inland countries which was not part of the original guidelines set out by which ship money could be collected. Also during this period, five out of twelve of the Kings own Judges agreed with and backed Hampden in his refusal to pay ship money. This is a useful source as it gives the royalist perspective on the Kings actions but also shows what the people who were against the King’s actions were doing to rebel, all in all agreeing that financial grievances were the main reason for opposition. Although Berkeley was very one sided in his argument, he gives across both perspectives of the time.
This is in contrast to the optimism that Macmillan had of the period stating that people had “never had it so good.” A generalised view is that the Conservative government had missed big opportunities to increase Britain’s status in the world, however not everything can be seen as a waste as the Conservatives had a clear manifesto, which was something that the Labour government did not appear to have, and they had economic and social success throughout Britain. The reasons for Labour’s victory included Wilson’s strengths as party leader and weaknesses of the Conservative party during these somewhat “wasted years.” UK economic growth proved to be slow in the 1950’s and 60’s, especially in relation to other European countries in the EEC, which supports the argument that these may have been thirteen wasted years. Furthermore, as Hennessey stated, “a third of Britain’s wealth had melted in the heart of the world war” and pressure from the USA after the Suez crisis resulted in a run on the pound, with a rapid fall in the value of the pound in international currency markets, especially in relation to the US dollar. Britain’s world exports had fallen from 20% to 15%, compared with Germany who showed a rise from 15% to 20%. In conjunction with this, under the Conservative government, Britain’s economy grew by 40%, however France’s grew by 50%, Germany’s grew by 250%
The possession of continental lands significantly weakened English central government in the period 1066 to 1216. Assess The possession of continental lands did not significantly weaken English central government in the period 1066 to 1216. Although the absence of the king occasionally created a need to raise a high geld or draw money out of the country’s economy, such absence also paved the way for great developments to the office of chief minister and the role of the exchequer. The development of the central role of ‘chief minister’ (later ‘chief justiciar’) is a clear example of the way in which continental possessions strengthened central government in the period. William Rufus’ appointment of Ranulf Flambard as an administrator of
Although Clinton’s scandal was unprofessional, it was not a great enough cause for impeachment. Both cases have affected the government; Johnson’s trial have caused a closer speculation by our government to review bills and acts before they are passed so an unconstitutional act will not be passed again; Clinton’s trial may have expressed that the President’s private life may not affect how he performs his presidential duties. The impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have similarities and differences, but both have had a positive effect of the United States