The Success of ‘The Edict of Nantes’ in 1598. The Edict of Nantes in 1598 was only a temporary solution to the religious wars in France from 1562-1598. There were several attempts to bring peace and unity to France during this time but each attempt was met with hostility by both sides and a common ground was not found until the reign of Henry IV. The problems with the Edict of Nantes’ predecessors were that they heavily favoured the Catholics and never met the demands of the Huguenots. The likes of the Edict of Saint-Germaine and Ambroise both gave small successions to the Huguenots but not what they desired.
Both political sides, the Republicans and the Federalists, did agree on one thing—that proceeding with the alliance they had with France and taking sides in the war was a bad idea. They had too many ties with trading from the British that would be destroyed if they took France’s side during the war. They also were afraid that it would cause an invasion and bring war to the United States. Overall, America came together in spite of their different views and made a decision that positively affected the United
As a result Edward decided to remove the Archbishop of York who had approved the marriage. This results in Warwick changing his alliance to Henry VI. Furthermore Edward IV had believed it was best to marry Elizabeth Woodville, for love rather than political reasons. This many nobles had seen as a mistake because their marriage did not create any alliances for England. Their marriage had also managed to alienate many of the nobles.
A major movement was the enlightenment. The enlightenment was in direct contrast to these views as it brought about a caviller dismissal of the prejudices that Burke sought to protect. Furthermore contrary to the conservative view the enlightened individuals promoted reason over reasonableness, as they believed this would liberate man from the oppression as the result of old laws. It would be foolish not to write this essay and not address Burke’s views on the French revolution. Burke opposed the instability and the reasoning of the revolution, as well as it’s potential to increase in violence and decline into anarchy, as it later did.
Philip II was pushed was in to action by the execution of Mary Stuart in 1587. To defend Catholicism he sent the Armada across to England to capture the throne and depose Elizabeth. Although Elizabeth’s naval forces were not as extensive as that of Philip’s The 1588 Armada was successfully defeated. However, there were debates about whether this success was due to Elizabeth and her government. It is true that the English navy’s long range canons prevented the Spanish from exercising tier preferred method of attach, which was to mount the oppositions ships.
* Sharpe acknowledged that the grounds for war were flimsy. * ‘Charles’ sense of wounded honour had initiated the conflict’ with Spain and England had merely ‘drifted’ into was with France, ‘not least as a consequence of the Duke of Buckingham’s personal quarrels with Cardinal Richelieu’. * With this being the case, why should Parliament be blamed for failing to maintain such wars arising from personal resentment? * Reeve’s “Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule” is, unlike Sharpe’s work, critical of Charles. * Having been forced into peace, Charles was inclined to stay at peace because of any resumption of wat would require a resemption of Parliament to pay for it.
Henry VIII began his reign as a loyal Catholic, accepting the Pope as head of the Church. The Pope even gave Henry the title, ‘Defender of the Faith’. This was a reward for writing a book that defended the Pope against criticism from a German reformer called Martin Luther. However, things did not stay the same - Henry VIII and the Pope had a quarrel. It was over Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
So, for an especially devout Roman Catholic - like Mary - it seemed only appropriate that she continue in the tradition of the Middle Ages and savagely punish those whose lives were setting a dangerous religious example (i.e. Protestants.) For, what it's worth, I think the arguments I've just given you are valid. But I still don't think that they excuse Mary from what she did. Politically, it made her far more enemies and destroyed
They were just fighting because they wanted to reform their government. But for America it was much more than fighting to reform their government. It was about fighting to part ways with Britain. It was about fighting for independence. France wasn’t part of the colonies like America was, America was sick of being treated badly, and unfairly so they decided to fight.
This came mostly from the French. France wanted Americans to win because France and Great Britain were enemies. France and the United States ended up in alliance and signed the Treaty of Anmity and Commerce. Spain didn’t directly help, but did attack British interests and threaten Britain itself. If it wasn’t for the colonists’ spirit, Americans probably never would have won the war.