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. However, although these events showed that he was not controlled by Warwick, there were many failures that outweigh his successes when it came to dealing with the over mighty subjects. Edward was said to have ‘alienated’ Warwick, which then caused him to become over mighty. Warwick was the biggest land owner in England and therefore had a lot of power, maybe even too much power as some people thought when it came to Edwards’s decision. Edwards marriage to Woodville was said to show favouritism as he subsequently gave the Woodville family titles and arranged the best marriages possible for Elizabeth’s sister, meaning that Warwick’s daughters did not get the desired marriages.
May-Lee Hoshi Modern World History 2B Bapi DBQ 17: Imperialism in India: An Evaluation European Imperialism in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries converted areas of Africa and Asia into a colonial empire that had really benefited the British. The Imperialism in India allowed the British to improve socially and economically without any negative consequences, while India, the colony, made great strides, but paid the price through lack of independence and the inability to develop as an industrial state. Both the colony and colonizers had a different point of view on what was happening to the countries. The British, the colonizers, believed that they were doing the countries a favor by helping India. British had introduced to the colony many new manufactured goods, technology, education, means or transportation and most importantly, better and quicker ways of communication (Document 1).
The position that should be taken on this issue is that British rule in India was a positive impact on the Indian people to a small extent. It’s impact on the Indian people was negative to a much a greater extent than the positive. It was a negative force for many different reasons. One reason is that the British rule over the
Despite the undoubtable successes of the Treaty of London and Field of Cloth of Gold as clearly described in Source 4 as the “Greatest Triumph” as well as the Successes at the Battle of Spurs and Flodden, the sheer squandering of Henry XII’s Legacy and the limited wealth of England being wasted completely outweighs the successes in Foreign Policy. Overall the embarrassing and naïve Failures outweigh the Successes in English Foreign Policy in the years
DBQ 17 British imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in negative and positive effects on India and Britain itself. The British were positively affected by imperialism, while India was both positively and negatively affected by the imperialism. Indian natives had no say in government, and were pretty much ruled over, but were also positively affected, like adopting a parliamentary system of government. Britain was positively affected and gained mass amounts of natural resources and processed them, also known as mercantilism. There were many positive affects to Imperialism in India.
How far do the sources suggest that James Callaghan was a good prime minister? As sources 1 and 2 would suggest James Callaghan was indeed a good prime minister. James Callaghan is a great prime minister who had the qualities that made him capable of running Britain but daunting economic circumstances led to his downfall. By the end of his government, Britain was deemed “The sick man of Europe”. Source 3 shows a clear disagreement though, as it states Callaghan “struggled to rule effectively until a vote of no-confidence” was called upon.
Previous kings had only used the Chamber erratically in times of war however Edward decided to make it more systematic, which in turn siphoned in much more money. This point does support how Edward was a good king because all sources show that it was his idea, not his exchequer. Edwards new policy showed that he managed the royal finances well because it meant that more revenue was coming in therefore he could run the country, as well as start paying of Henry’s debts. Additionally it meant that he could live of his own because he did not have to ask parliament to raise a tax. I think that this was possibly the most important cause to
And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition. These circumstances proved effective in propelling Pitt’s domination but without his own skill he would not have been able to dominate, for example his financial skill ensured that Britain benefitted from the industrial revolution as was the handling of the regency crisis which completely favoured Pitt but he
By the time it was 1763 most of the white colonies would say that they are loyal British subjects. However after 1763, mostly between the time periods 1775-76, these years saw the send of the relationship with Britain. The British should take some of this blame as they did introduce some rigorous polices after 1763. This was an unwanted change for the American Colonies, As Britain left them alone for so long but now are starting to change things. But there are other courses of the break out of the armed conflict not just polices of the British Government that are the colonies as not all of the polices where unreasonable.
‘Do you agree with the view that the British public’s enthusiasm for the Empire increased during the Second Boer War (1899-1902)?’ Source 4 agrees with the view that the British public’s enthusiasm for the Empire increased during the Second Boer War. It suggests that the country was overjoyed at the news of a military development, but at the end implies that it was only possible for people to form this opinion through the influence of press. Source 6 supports the content of this Source to some extent, agreeing with the view that people supported imperialistic propaganda. This Source suggests that people believed that they had to support imperialism (because of propaganda), not because they wanted to, using music halls as evidence. On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not.