This is shown in document 3 of the wjec pack. Also with Wellington as Prime minister the likelihood of reform being passed was very slim as he was a large representative of the aristocracy, in document 4 of the wjec pack the narrow minded attitude of wellington toward reform being passed as it shows that Wellington was under the opinion that reform was not needed in government and thus effectively made reform impossible to occur. The
How successful was Edward IV management of the Royal Finances? Edward IV inherited the throne from Henry VI who had left the Crown in serious debt, therefore it was up to Ed to right this by earning not only enough to run the country, but also to pay back the debt. Furthermore a medieval king was expected to “live of their own” which meant that they should be able to afford the running of the country through their own lands and not need to ask parliament for tax which leads onto my next point in which the king should not rely on Parliamentary grants too much. I think that to a large extent, Ed was successful in managing the Royal Finances because I think that he fulfilled all of the criteria. Firstly, he was successful in managing the royal finances by innovatively using the Royal Chamber to efficiently manage the royal income.
However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country. Henry's father, Henry VII, left the country in quite a stable state economically, but Henry devoted most of England's money into his campaigns to take over France, because he believed had a right to the Throne. To some extent source 4 supports the idea that the foreign policy did fail due to the lack of resources, because it states that “the young warrior family accepted the fact that royal finances could not support a repetition of the campaign of 1513”. This quote implies that the lack of resources seems to be the dominant reason for stopping Henry from invading France and therefore source 4 supports the statement to some extent. In source 4 we also learn that much must have depended on diplomatic relations with Maximilian and Ferdinand, however Henry’s allies proved unfaithful and unreliable.
How successful was Edward VI in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470? Edward IV enjoyed successes and also failures in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470. Edward had some successes in dealing with over mighty subjects, for example, his marriage to Elisabeth Woodville shows that he was not controlled by an over powering Warwick. This was important as it showed both Warwick and the rest of the country that he was not controlled by Warwick and could make his own decisions. Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor.
1633 He makes a catholic called William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury. He hates us. 1630s Earl of Strafford rules Ireland for Charles. He is unpopular with the Irish and the Us. 1635 He starts an unpopular tax called ship tax.
Henry was supported and manipulated by William de la Pole, Edmund Beaufort and his French wife, Margaret of Anjou. His uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and Richard Duke of York were opposed to Henry’s “peace at any price policy”. The unhappiness with the Kings rule can be reflected in Cade’s Rebellion in 1450, representing the frustration with the weak king. Though however, it was not this rebellion that lead to the outbreak of conflict. Henrys weakness was obvious, and his power was easily harnessed by those at court, in particular by his favourites, the Beaufort family and William de la Pole.
Both sources A and B indicate that Charles was instrumental in the collapse of the relationship. In particular source A identifies Charles’ pursuit of ‘policies in religion, foreign affairs and finance” as major factors in contributing to the breakdown. This points to the attempts of Charles to reform the church and move it towards Arminianism; his disastrous failure at Cadiz and La Rochelle costing the country both money and men, and his attempt to finance the crown independently through the illegal collection of customs duties (tunnage and poundage). These policies drove a wedge between crown and parliament and were rooted in Charles’ behaviour and desire to exert his authority. Indeed source A attempts to remove the finger of blame from parliament, which had been accused of grasping to usurp the power and authority of the king, by suggesting that “money and parliamentary privilege were symptoms and not the cause of the breakdown.” Source B supports this notion as it indicates that the policies of Charles’ government “raised fundamental legal, constitutional and religious issues.” In this sense both sources A and B agree with each other,
There are many historians that argue if the minority council had influence over the causes in either the long or short term causes of the War of the Roses. In John Gillingham’s book, ‘the War of the Roses,’ quotes that ‘the Lancastrian council ruled economically and well’,’ which meant that despite the ‘personal rivalries between the king’s uncles’ they made sure they kept it ‘confined to quarrels in the council chamber’ and the minority is described as being ‘remarkable’ due to the fact that the Anglo-Burgundian alliance
For Obama to be a Machiavellian prince he does not only need power, but it depends on how it’s used through military matters. It is considerable to consider Obama a prince because he focuses on cutting government spending on the military. Also, he deals with being blamed on how a prince should keep his word. – This last sentence does not blend with the paragraph- The opposition claims that he won the presidency not by good fortune and not through his own truthful words. They say he turned the key to “weak masters” and begged to foreign directors.
The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.”- Jim Rhon. A good leader should allow there people to be secure, and allow the people to grow financially, and he/she should be able to represent there peoples values. Philip II didn’t do any of that. Philip was a murderous oppressor, who acquired large debts from his military actions, and imposed high taxes on his citizens which evidently led to his ultimate failure. Philip is called close minded and said to be selfish with his money.