This shows that Wolsey was a successful chief minister in terms of justice because he saw it as his duty to bring everyone justice no matter how rich they were. But there were times when Wolsey used the courts to further his own position and carry out personal vendettas against enemies. For example Wolsey had been put in the stocks by Paulet in a bid to teach the young man a lesson about humility and good grace. Wolsey never forgot his humiliation and used his position as Lord Chancellor to have his revenge. Source 8 supports this because it says 'But Wolsey's vision and his originality in
Fourth, their use of the feudal system, as well as the administration which accompanied it enabled them to keep their kingdoms and subjects in check. Whilst all these factors played a role, without the force of their armies behind them, the ruler’s control of the kingdom crumbled, marking out force as the most important factor enabling effective royal government. The use of force by rulers was crucial in establishing and maintaining effective royal government in the middle ages. By the victories of armies the rulers of kingdoms could be changed in a very short space of time, as the Norman conquest of England in 1066 aptly demonstrates. This ‘Right of Conquest’ gave rulers a legitimate claim to a throne because of their military might.
How successful was Gladstone’s first ministry? If ‘achieving what you set out to do’ defines successful, then Gladstone’s First Ministry was certainly a success. The Acts that were passed during his time as leader of the Liberal party had great impact on the population both then, and in some cases, still now. However not all his Acts were well received and this created some controversy. Gladstone’s main goal was to pacify Ireland and he was the first British politician to tackle the unfair way in which Ireland was run.
This view is largely accredited because Pitt came into office in a difficult time but events around him seemed to benefit him rather well. Britain was entering the industrial revolution at the time, industry rose up and trade would boom due to expansion of the industries at home and abroad, the advancements of technology meant that Britain was going through a natural change that arguably Pitt was able to captain through leading to better fortunes. The natural opposition from the Whig party against the king led by Charles Fox meant that Pitt naturally had the Kings support against any opposition which could be thrown at him, the king would back him up. The American Revolution and his lack of connection to it meant that he was seen as a new politician not one of the previously failed governments who’s lack of control and rule in a situation. 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.
Many countries and people probably did as well. On paper it appears that England would win without a doubt; they had all the means necessary for a victorious win over the colonists. When people come together to fight over a common cause, it is amazing what can happen. This is proven true by the outcome of the War for Independence. America won not because they had better soldiers, more supplies and weapons, or better fighting styles.
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
Although there failure of completely vanquishing the warlords there can be little doubt that Chiang was fairly successful in solving this domestic problem and the effects it would have on the country as it is probably that without him stabilising the political and social unrest civil war would have broken out in the country much early than it did. The GMD was able to successfully implement new and improved transport links throughout the country. The three thousand mile railway track connected North and South which helped Chiang to begin re-unifying the country and the people. However there can be little doubt that the transport was created for sole purpose of the urban rich who were the majority of his supporters and it only aided them to become
I will be arguing that the achievement of the Attlee Government were remarkable. The sources which I’ll be using show the impact that the Attlee Government had on Britain. From my own knowledge and also the sources, I can show that the achievements of Attlee Government were remarkable as it helped the people of Britain live much better lives. On the contrary it can also show that the achievements weren’t remarkable as it had created many problems for the country. Source 4 is suggesting that since the Attlee government had come into power sorted out many problems in Britain.
This was one of the ways in which he rebuilt the royal finances which eventually left his son with a fortune. He also used dynastic royal marriages to establish his dynasty in England and help maintain peace. One of the marriages arranged was between his daughter, Margaret Tudor and James IV of Scotland. This showed that Henry took his vision of peace seriously as it meant that James' descendants would have claim to the throne. Overall, although Henry's reign faced hardships by plots and conspiracies against him it is said that 'by the standards of his time, the king was remarkably merciful in dealing with those who threatened his throne', which again contradicts the traditional characteristics associated with him.
Self-government of the English people The English people had competence for self-government due to an increase in the power invested upon the people, the desire of the common man to have a say in how his life is run, and the lack of omnipresence in government. While the governments of other western European nations were attempting to control everything, in the 12th century England began to alleviate governmental presence.2 Also in 1215, with the establishment of the Magna Carta, the people began to realize that they had the capability to govern just as the king did. Henry II was the king that began this process. A quote by A.B White sums it all up, “Henry II implemented self-government at the king’s command.”5 His chief contribution was the idea to increase the power of the royal courts and then decrease the power of the feudal courts. This had three major effects: a permanent system of circuit courts presided over by wandering justices, the jury system, and a body of law common to all England.1 The wandering justices would travel from place to place, and when they weren’t in town a representative from the town would be elected by the people to step up and be judge.