For such an organisation to have made a generous offer to the King previously shows a dichotomy between conservatism and radicalism. Cromwell embodied this dichotomy, first favouring the retention of the monarchy under Prince Henry,[3] later rejecting the chance to wear the crown himself, feeling that God had condemned monarchy. This is important because it shows a significant proportion of those that supported parliament were not opposed to monarchy, but rather wished to secure the rights of parliament. As
The rejection of the “People’s Budget” in 1909 stimulated the greatest constitutional crisis for a generation, and provided grounding for the need to introduce reform to ensure a supposedly more democratic, legitimate and effective political system, where popular will triumphed. The Parliament Act 1911 set into motion the establishment of Commons’ dominance of Parliament, and the debate over legitimacy of the upper house up until the present day. [3] In 1958, the Life Peerages Act provided for the regular creation of life peers (as opposed to hereditary peers), as a more acceptable form of new membership, yet the remaining lack of a mandate continued to make the Lords’ role questionable . This essay will contrast the merits and demerits of an unelected House of Lords to that of an elected one, and whether such characteristics could be used as
The first main difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the mid-1860s is their beliefs. The Liberals led by William Gladstone, were general believers of Gladstonian Liberalism. This was essentially “peace reform and retrenchment”. Gladstone’s own financial policies that were based on balanced budgets, low taxes, and laissez-faire (self-help) were better suited to the developing capitalist society of Britain in the mid-1860s. The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government.
Bismarck’s main reasoning for following Kulturkampf was to keep hold of his influence, which he felt was threatened by the Centre Party, and he felt that K would prevent any uprising. However it is the result of K that made it unsuccessful for Bismarck because the Anti-Catholic Stance endangered good foreign relations with Austria and spiritually the Catholic Church thrived, and there was a political increase in the representation of the Centre Party in the Reichstag- 1871: 58 seats 1890: 106 seats. This meant that Bismarck lost support, the National Liberal‘s seats in the Reichstag decreased from 125 se, whilst
However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
By 1529 England was diplomatically isolated and this might be considered a consequence of Wolsey’s advances to the French • the increasingly central position of Norfolk, Suffolk and Rochford at Court was recognised even by Wolsey in the Eltham Ordinances. It was the King himself who ordered Wolsey to appoint more counsellors • Failure of the Amicable Grant. Factors suggesting other factors were important might include: • Henry VIII had increasingly separated himself from Wolsey. Yet the Eltham Ordinances were used to Wolsey’s advantage in effectively reducing the number of courtiers around the monarch • failure to secure the annulment of the King’s marriage was a significant factor for it angered the King. On a simplistic level, Wolsey was protected only as long as he proved to be useful • opposition to Wolsey’s foreign policy came from a range of sources, for example the Church.
Conversely, Source C (First Interim Report of the Committee of National Expenditure) demonstrates a more negative approach, suggesting the shrinking of the state; inferring that the committee are relatively indifferent to the scale of social unrest (perhaps even no comprehension for the possibility of a Bolshevik revolution) due to the fact that they do not wish to give the public something positive in the wake of the previous national tragedy. Both greatly differing viewpoints present a spectrum of views to how the post war government should deal with social problems- providing historians with informative evidence on the matter. The reliability of both sources is crucial in order to consolidate both sources
The gradual ascendance of the three revolutions ended in a failure of a third one, but Woolridge and Micklethwait seem to overly stress the faults of second revolution and third. The first revolution was that of Leviathan, the game-changing document that made Hobbes seem like a “dangerous egalitarian”, establishing a social contract by the people in which “parliament could be as effective as a king and that the essence of Leviathan lay in the nation state rather than in family territories..” (32), with the sovereign governing “with a light touch as if strained..by a constitutional order (Woolridge and Micklethwait 33). The next piece of history was simply that,
The Glorious Revolution was to overthrow King James II of England by a union of the English Parliamentarians and with William of Orange in the Netherlands. The Glorious Revolution recreates the monarchy England had lost in the reign of Oliver Cromwell but limits its power under the Constitutional Monarchy. The House of Commons became equal to and gaining more power than the House of Lords. After much intolerance over religion, the Parliament issues with the long succession of kings, and the people’s wishes being denied more often than not, I believe that England should be ruled as a democracy where people are able to elect leaders, try to keep a stable throne and ensure reforms that will help the people. My past experiences and views of how a government should be and its ruler has helped me come to this decision.
France thought the war would not only help by stopping Germany’s increase in power. It would also help Napoleon III to regain his popularity after some of his failures after the commencement of his dictatorship, such as the Mexican adventure of 1867. I will now go onto the short term reasons. Firstly, Spain needed a king and Bismarck saw his chance to send Prince Leopold to become king there. France protested because they thought that having German influence on both sides would be too much if conflict would have occured.