“Somerset and Northumberland were effective and capable rulers” Assess the validity of this interpretation. Throughout the reigns of both Northumberland and Somerset there were inevitably issues and successes on both sides. The factors we can assess are Religion, social and economic and finally foreign policy. Northumberland undoubtedly had his problems, as did Somerset, although it is clear that both were capable rulers it was just the situations they both inherited that caused their downfalls. Northumberland’s religious views were unclear as he seemed to drift between beliefs in order to achieve the most power possible for himself.
Each state would have considerable control over their own affairs and decided their own form of government. For Example Bavaria and Saxony were ruled by kings. the Federal government had three branches to it. The first part was the Presidency which was help by the King of Prussia, as known as German Emperor. The German Emperor has considerable powers, he had personal control over the armed forces and he could appoint and dismiss all ministers including the Chancellor.
Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers. The Kaiser's constitutional powers showed that he certainly had enough potential powers to be a authoritarian leader and i believe he fulfilled all his potential by using his power to 'ensure the constitution preserves the power of the elite' which was Bismarks main aim as the chancellor. The Kaiser could appoint and dismiss the Chancellor, dissolve the Reichstag with the consent of the Bundesrat, control Germany's foreign policy and serves as the commander of chief of the armed forces. The plethora of consitutional powers the Kaiser held clearly supports the
The Kaiser of Germany, who was the King of Prussia, could be the main reason why Germany was conceived as an authoritarian monarchy, due to the Kaiser having such a powerful constitutional position that no-one could challenge him. Kaiser Wilhelm II was not elected as Emperor of Germany but was automatically selected which instantly shows signs of an authoritarian state, rather than a democratic one. On top of this Wilhelm II had the power to appoint to and dismiss the Chancellor; which he exercised 5 times including on Bismark (1890) and Bulow (1909) these did show signs of power from the Kaiser but also a weakness in the structure of Germany as the Kaiser was not able to choose a Chancellor that would provide leadership and loyalty to him. The Kaiser was also given the power direct Germany’s foreign policy and command all armed forces in peace and war which does show incredible amounts of dictatorship like qualities. However, it could be argued that because Germany was so widespread with many class divisions it was almost an impossible task for Kaiser Wilhelm to please everyone causing groups like the ‘middelstand’ to join
The new king had real power and was in control of the army and he would also personally select the prime minister and all the individual ministers meaning the people had no real vote; they could vote in a person as a minister only to have the king turn him away. In parliament there was a huge lack of political parties. Politicans were linked by family and local interests rather than political principles. This gave the king more influence and made room for him to manipulate people through his favorite prime minister to support a certain ministry. This way of running government became known as
Wolsey changed areas of government such as the justice system and revised areas such as finances and parliament structure. His relationship with the King was significant, as he would be the higher power and would need to negotiate with the King and yet still get the correct decision. Wolsey managed his relationship with henry well, he tried to get the right outcome for the country but never forced it upon Henry, not damaging their relationship and keeping Wolsey in power. Wolsey had a poor approach with justice; in court he gained a poor reputation for taking bribes and his relationship with England’s nobility was poor to say the least. The financial approach was a tough period in finance; with a King that wanted to spend and go to war, and Wolsey had no choice but to bow to his majesty’s request.
This made the contemporaries scandalised, it provoked negative thoughts with regards to both Buckingham and James. Their public displays of affection only served to bring the court into more disrepute, even if it was not unusual for a king to have favourites. Buckingham was a shrewd manipulator of the king. James went so far that he allowed him to involve himself in politic matters and decision-making. The parliament of January 1621 to 1622 started to revers the trend towards Buckingham's ever-expending power
This scared Louis XIV a lot, but it also benefited him. The townspeople began to consider him as an absolute monarch, because they would rather have one then the series of riots that were going on. For the people/peasants, nothing could compare to the awful Fronde. Now that he was an absolute Monarch, Louis had an extravagant lifestyle. He had food, got his way, and everything he wanted!
Some may say that Henry was largely successful in achieving his aims with his biggest success being the battle of the spurs in 1513. Henry VIII want to be seen as a different king to his father who had a bad reputation for being aware of his money and not engaging in many wars which the nobilities did not like. He started by giving away the crowns land and gave many titles to the nobilities to prove that he would be different to his father. Catherine of Aragon, who had married Henry’s brother Arthur was still kept in England after Arthur had died. Henry had immediately married her after all the delays that his father had caused.
Adolf Hitler was a highly powerful man. He made sure things happened his way and no other. Hitler became powerful when