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.
King George III played a significant part in Pitt’s success as Prime Minister but I wouldn’t say it was all down to the King. There were many aspects that contributed to his success and many were due to his relationship with King George, however some were simply because of Pitt himself. Some historians believe that his success was all based on his close links with the monarchy and without it he would never of been able to achieve the things he did but it is apparent that without the King’s help, Pitt may have never obtained his position in power. However, it is also clear that to a great extent, Pitt’s success is due to his own gained popularity, his logical and successful ideas and sheer determination. Despite the King’s help in enabling Pitt’s position in power, we must also analyse the other factors that contribute to Pitt’s success, for instance, the weakened status of the Whig’s leader, Charles Fox and the improvements that Pitt made to the financial and economical state of the nation.
How successful was Henry VII in increasing wealth of the crown? 24 marks Throughout Henry’s reign he made good use of his financial resources. Henry VII knew he needed a good financial base so he could run the country, but on a more personal note, he also saw the need to create a strong financial situation to be able to secure his reign and dynasty. As Caroline Rodgers states 'Henry was acutely aware of the importance of strong finances if he was to remain safely on the throne.' However, it has often been said of Henry, 'No man has ascended to the throne with such a lack of financial experience and resources as Henry VII.'
How far do the sources suggest that the Addled Parliament was short-lived because of the action of the House of Commons? The sources suggest to a reasonable extent that the Addled Parliament was short-lived due to the House of Commons. However there is evidence to suggest that the Kings arrogance and strong belief in the hierarchical system that caused the dissolution of Parliament. Source 10 suggests the Commons wanted the King to make concessions, ensuring a stable relationship, showing that the Commons were disputing with the crowns policies, thus giving the impression that Parliament was short-lived due to the House of Commons’ actions. Source 10 says that the Commons were expecting the King to make concessions that should ‘be: relieving the resentment caused by purveyance, giving greater clarity to the law of treason and reforming troublesome laws” This source suggests that the Commons were undermining the King’s power and believing that their influence was greater than it was.
The marriage reconciled factions giving him strong authority. Another way Henry VII strengthened his authority was by introducing effective policies on law and order. This did not just discipline his authority over the country but impacted nobles inparticularly. Acts of Attainder were used against any forms of treason committed by nobles. From 1485 to 1495 Henry attainted eight people who had committed crimes against the Crown.
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Napoleon was principally motivated by the desire to benefit himself, rather than to benefit the people of France Napoleon saw himself as the god-sent “Saviour of France”, whose task it was to re-instate political, social and economic prosperity and stability to a country ravaged by years of turmoil. However, whether his primary intention was, or had always been, to benefit the French population has long been bought into question. Nonetheless, the view that his primary motivation had always been to benefit France is certainly supported by both Blanning (D) and Herold (B), who strive to take into account the public opinion of the time, as well as the political and economic situation, which undoubtedly served to “legitimise” his authoritarian rule in the eyes of the French population. Nevertheless, the motivations of Bonaparte have long been disputed; and he is perceived by some, such as Tulard (C), and to a certain extent Guerard (A), as an opportunist and “arriviste” who used France as a platform for his personal ambitions as a dictatorial tyrant and war-wager. However, the most accurate assessment of Bonaparte’s intentions as leader most probably lies somewhere in between these two views.
Do you accept the view in source V that Wolsey’s domestic policies were disappointing? At the beginning of source V, Ian Dawson does claim to believe that Wolsey’s domestic policy was disappointing; with him evaluating that “his capacity for detailed hard work together with his creativity promised more than was delivered”. However he does not fully support this view, giving reasoning for this apparent failure. He states that “we expect change and improvement where the sixteenth century sought stability and security-objectives...” and that “ultimate responsibility lay with the king”. Therefore when evaluating the reforms Wolsey managed to implement or fall back on in this particular case, it is important to judge by the standards of sixteenth century citizens rather than our own.
Although the source explains how Louis was heavily influenced by others around him the source does however show how Louis was an effective absolute monarch. ‘the mistakes I have committed’, ‘some important matters could have been done better not personal interests been put before regard for welfare and power of the state’. Both of these quotations show how it was Louis who solely made the decisions thereby backing up the argument that absolutism was strengthened during 1661-1693.source A agrees with source B as it also shows how absolutism was strengthened in this period. The source is about Louis’s first act as king whereby he states how he will not have an assistant and will do it all himself meaning that he will have complete control over every single government decision that is made. The source is written in 1661 on the day that cardinal Mazarin dies.
Henry was very successful in securing his claim to the throne through the majority of his reign through things such as progresses, rewards and gaining loyalty. He was a very clever man and a man of peace. However, in 1502, despite his succession, he experienced quite a lot of instability. Before 1502, Henry was very successful. He secured the Tudor dynasty successfully in many ways.
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