Therefore I believe Lord Curzon was indeed a successful viceroy. Of the Sources, source two is intended to convey Lord Curzon’s tenure as Viceroy in the most positive manner .It lists his positive qualities that made him “India’s best ruler under the raj” . However given the nature of the British Empire in countries such as India the main priority is not always the well fair of the country. For instance many believe Britain was draining India of its wealth rather than helping develop the country, Dadabhai Naoroji's created this “drain theory”. Britain had used combination of force as well as divides and conquers to control India Up until this point.
This made his position a weak one, forcing Edward to bind himself to Godwin, as the Earl of Wessex and most powerful man in England at this time. Earl Godwin was the only member of the witan offering to support Edward. The reasons for this are unclear though it is likely Godwin felt that he could exert influence over the inexperienced King and therefore gain yet more power over England. Despite the odds being stacked against him, Edward took the English throne from the Danish royal family and established himself as a strong and wise King. Clearly his success had to be dependant on a number of weighty advantages, his growing up in Exile for example.
William Pitt came to power in December 1783, becoming the youngest prime minister in British history. Pitt’s authoritative nature right from the outset served him in good stead, and he exercised a dominance over both parliament and his monarch which very few subsequent Prime Ministers have managed. Pitt also supported parliamentary reform right from the off, and he believed that parliament at that moment in time had become too resistant to reform and the King held too much power. He was a brave man, knowing that the King detested parliamentary reform, he submitted a general proposal for which it was easier to get support for than a specific scheme. He also wanted to increase the British electorate by 30%.
Henry 7th was ruthless in securing the Tudor dynasty. Firstly he quickly married Elizabeth of York, which not only united the country, but also gave him two sons, Arthur and Henry, which meant that the Tudor line was secure. Next, to protect the marriage of Arthur and Catherine of Aragon, Henry executed the Earl of Warwick who was in the tower. This was a smart move by Henry because Warwick did have a claim to the throne and could have not only split up the marriage of Arthur and Catherine, but also threaten Henry’s stability as king. Henry also needed to control the nobility because if he didn’t, or only managed to control a minority, he could have a revolution, and Nobles, together, had a lot more money and power than the king himself.
This huge amount of land that was under his controlled was known as the Angevin Empire, this land meant that Henry wasn’t going to be just King of England but also lord of half of France. This meant that he had immense power which could have intimidated the people that were willing to threaten his rule. As well as his power being something to fear, his power could also have been respected because he was so powerful he was able to keep half of France under control before he became king of England. This shows that he was a very capable leader, with lots of experience which would have aided him in getting a fast and secure kingdom easily. Henry had several advantages that came with becoming King of England, England had well established laws and customs that were in place, despite them being under strain through Stephens reign, they were still in place and waiting to be used.
Why was the Unreformed House of Commons able to Reform itself in 1832? The splintering of the Tory party into several different factions played a part the Reform bill being able to be passed through the House of Commons. It split between the Huskissonites, The Ultras and the Small group of Support Wellington and Peel had managed to maintain. In 1832 Wellington tried to make a new Cabinet at the behest of this king but this crumbled when Peel refused to become involved in a Government that would pass Reform. The strong leadership of Grey over the Whigs was also a vital part of the road to reform as Grey was determined to get a Reform bill passed through Parliament (Reform that you can preserve) because of growing pressure from the middle class businessmen in Large cities that had no representation such as Birmingham and Manchester.
There were many factors that created a base for the reformist groups to flourish at that time in Russia which in turn created a Revolution. Alexander III was determined to upkeep Russia’s image as a major European power, unlike his father; however he was a conservative, believing that his father’s reforms were a mistake and took to reverse them as much as he could. The counter-reforms initially may have looked like a success due to the period of stability during Alexander III’s reign; however with the Revolution a few years later it seems to be that the counter-reforms were not as successful as they may have seemed. The political oppression resultant of these counter-reforms meant Russia politically was behind its major European counterparts, whilst England and France by now had a form of democracy, Russia was still being ruled by total autocracy, and this increased the resentment against the government and added to the growth of reformist groups. Because of the political structure in place in Russia at the time, without a revolution the only way change was possible was from the Tsar being willing to change things, the Tsar was not willing and he clearly demonstrated this through the counter-reforms, leaving an angry population
All payments went towards the king, this would've also made the Earls not feel powerful enough, especially Harold Godwin who was seen as the most powerful man in England, but theoretically he wasn’t. However the Economy was well governed because the trade increased, which encouraged both the growth of towns and foreign contacts, this demonstrates that England were still involved in trade, which was good for the economy. However the economy was not very well developed especially compared to the Byzantine Empire and Muslim world. Those economies were massive, especially when compared to England’s. Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned.
He pursued a policy of what has been called ‘counter reform’. Counter-reform was partly a reaction to the murder of Alexander II, but Alexander III also believed that his fathers ‘Great Reforms’ had been a mistake, weakening Tsarism and leaving it vulnerable and insecure. He introduced political repression of opponents, counter-reform, increased central control, financial reform and the policy of Russification as the core stone of his reign. His policy was to undo the reforms as far as possible. In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had.
Louis Napoleon claimed that sovereignty of the people was his first priority, but it is obvious that his authoritarian rule actually came first. However, The Bonapartist regime became a little more liberal in the 1860’s as Louis Napoleon became more lenient on press censorship, he allowed for open debates to take place in the parliament. He also began urban renewal and development projects in Paris and constructed railways which encouraged and created economic development. He appeared to be a very reliable and suitable emperor, but his main downfall was his terrible decisions when it came to his foreign policy which ultimately led to his demise. France was in a bad state after the revolutions of 1848 which was sparked, because the King Louis-Philippe and his ministers refused an extension to the franchise.