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. Therefore, while both the main Yorkist Kings during this period did go some way to restoring royal authority in England, their successes were limited. Edward IV was successful at restoring royal authority as he was able to control the different regions of the Kingdom, such as the North and Wales, through the use of magnates. During his reign, Edward makes Richard, his brother, the duke of Gloucester, and puts Rivers in charge of Wales and his son. This meant that these areas, which were traditionally either pro-Lancastrian or prone to rebellion, were more controlled during Edward IV’s reign, which helped to restore royal authority.
How far were Louis XVI's problems of his own making? The problems Louis XVI faced during his reign were partially due to his lack of leadership ability, his poor decisions and unwise actions. He created these problems by giving too much power to his nobles and hardly utilizing his power in his Divine Right. However, he did inherit an archaic system which was on the verge of collapse in Europe in general and the government of France had many inbuilt weaknesses already. He was faced with a tidal wave of new, enlightened ideas that was also fueled by France's involvement in the American war of independence.
How far was the outbreak of civil war in 1455 a direct result of Henry’s inadequacies as king? In order to assess the cause of civil war, we must understand it’s meaning. Civil war is defined as a war between factions or regions of the same country. In this particular by w05anettletoncase, it was a battle between the ‘Yorkists’, who were Loyal to Richard Duke of York, and the ‘Lancastrians’, who were Loyal to the King. There were many factors that aided the outbreak in 1455, however I believe that these factors were all results of Henry’s inadequacies as king, or could have been prevented if Henry was a more suitable ruler.
The new family was called the Tudor family. I think that Henry obtained power by killing Richard III. He secured his power by marrying Elizabeth of York. This united the country and it made it difficult for anyone on either side to rebel against each other. If they rebelled they would be accused of high treason and they would have a social stigma.
Moreover, it wasn’t just a commoners revolt as a variety of classes were involved such as some nobility like Lord Darcy and the Percy’s and also gentry and priests stood against parliament. As well as this, the revolt was strengthened with the rebels holding Pontefract Castle and York. This meant that the rebels had a defendable territory and if in case of battle, the Pilgrims were ready with their own grounds which would make it more difficult for Henry to defeat the rebels when they seemed to be considerably stronger than Henry himself- this was a serious threat indeed. What glued the pilgrimage of grace together were their rebel
Additionally, suspicions had risen of radical parliamentarians and the people were reliant on Charles’ return to stop this. These reasons are the main factors for Charles’ support in 1646. Charles’ return to the throne would have meant an end to Parliament’s County Committees, which many felt were worse than living under Charles’ rule. A large portion of the population had suffered the brutal dominion of the County Committees, which only worsened as the war progressed and Parliament became more desperate to finance the war. Primarily made up of fiercely loyal Puritans, the County Committees were efficient in reaching the monthly quotas set by Parliament.
How far did Henry VIII’s reign begin a new era in Tudor Kingship? Henry VIII wanted to be different from his father. By the end of Henry VII’s reign, he was known to be greedy, frugal and overly obsessed with money, as implied by source E on pg7, which calls Henry “not a great man” because “his love of money is too great”. This source is a letter from the Spanish Ambassador, Catherine of Aragon, to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, written in 1489. It is very reliable as Catherine would have had no reason to lie and would have an accurate impression of Henry VII as she was close to him.
In this essay i will explore the factors in the beginning of conflict in 1455 England. One key factor for the outbreak of conflict was the ambitions of Richard Duke of York, He wanted his heirs to be king and after Yorks protectorate somerset questioned Yorks loyalty to the king, Another factor is the influence Margaret of Anjou had on the weak minded king Henry VI, Convincing him that York was not to be trusted. In my opinion Yorks ambitions played a part in the conflict to a minor extent. Richard, Duke of York primarily wanted his heirs to be king, to ensure this in the early parts of his life he was not interested in taking the throne from the current king Henry VI but instead supported him and acted as lord protector, If his ambitions were important to him surely he could of fought sooner, Until Henry’s recovery in 1455 relations with the king and York were strong, Once the king recovered and had no need for York, he made Somerset Captain of Calais and Protector of the king, this may have felt like betrayal to york after being lord protector weeks before. This squashed Yorks ambitions to gain the throne for his heirs, After the announcement that the King and Somerset were to hold a council in leicester without the involvement of York and Warwick, York acted quickly to raise his army to intercept the Kings army.
It would be a fair statement to make that although Great Britain had big enough threats and factors for revolution to actually happen, the threat lacked a certain spark that could have ignited the revolution, spreading into a full-blown fire across the whole country, helping end the monarchy. The first key point to look at is the nature of British society at the time. The economy and living conditions can always be catalysts for a revolution- an example is the sorry state of the French economy, one of the major causes of revolution breaking out there, just before they went into revolution. Now, had the economy of Britain in the 1790’s been as crippled as France’s was, then it would have been likely that people in Great Britain would have been feeling desperate for change, and a revolutionary would have been looking likely. However, this was not the case.
The Lambert Simnel rebellion (1486-7) came about due to Henry VII weak claim to the throne; after all he was only descended from John of Gaunt, one of Edward III’s sons, and even then he was an illegitimate heir due to being descended from the product of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford illicit union. This left him open to dynastical challenges from members of the ousted House of York, such as the Earl of Warwick, who while believed dead, was not confirmed as such, this enabled Lambert Simnel to claim to be him, and allowed Perkin Warbeck to claim to be Richard Duke of York (one of the princes in the tower), with little challenge to their claim. If Henry had a stronger claim to the throne it would have been a lot harder for Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck to have rallied support for the Yorkist cause and attempt to overthrow him. Henrys dynastical weakness also caused him to be diplomatically weak, due to other countries, such as Scotland, France, Burgundy and the Holy Roman Empire recognizing Warbeck (Richard Duke of York) as the legitimate King of England, Henry was forced to sign many treaties to expel Warbeck from their countries and eliminate their support for him, for example the Treaty of Ayton, whilst expelling Warbeck, also meant that Henrys daughter had to marry the Scottish king.