Why was the Cornish Rebellion 1497 a threat to Henry VII? 12 marks The Cornish rebellion of 1497 was a threat to Henry VII for four main reasons. Firstly, it involved Perkin Warbeck who dictated Henry’s foreign policy severely, jeopardising his alliances. Secondly Henry VII’s harsh methods of government which threatened his control over his subjects. Thirdly, Henry VII’s delayed reaction enabled the Cornish rebellion expand and thereby threaten his defences.
This was a major threat to Henry especially since the rebels already numbered “40000 combatants and among them 10000 horses”. Since their army was very large, (the army Henry sent to fight for Spain on the border of France numbered only 10000), the King would not be able to defeat the, especially as Norfolk’s army was only 8000. It is worth noting that the King himself did not go himself to crush the rebellion, which suggests that he may have truly found it a serious threat and that he could be killed. In source U, it says that “Norfolk and his colleagues do not wish for battle, showing tacitly that the petitions of the rebels are lawful”. This shows that the rebels were not totally against the King, so it would be unpopular for him to outright attack them.
Is Richard II about Bolingbroke’s ambition or Richard’s incompetency? At the core of William Shakespeare’s allegorical play Richard II, the disparities between the abilities of Bolingbroke’s ambitions and Richard incompetence are explored in depth. Shakespeare’s prime impetus was to investigate a warning and voice concerns to the reigning monarch Queen Elizabeth I, that there could be catastrophic consequences if the Great Chain of Being was disrupted. Shakespeare projects Richard as a conniving and calculating character who overestimates his authority to such an extent that he fails to fulfil the duties of kingship. Richard shows a dangerous capacity for poor judgment and fascination with luxury, which deviate from the expectations of royalty.
In 1213 he collected so much money from taxes that half of all the coins in England were his to spend. By doing this he aggravated the Barons, good Kings consult their Barons when handling big decisions but John didn’t. The facts suggest that the Barons got irritated when John didn’t consult them when important matters were being discussed; this was another long term cause of the rebellion. Another long term cause for the rebellion was the disagreement over the church. In 1205 John was in discrepancy with the Pope over who ought to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury, just like his father had done, John refused to let Stephen Langton, the Pope’s choice, become the
Between 1924 and 1929, after the Munich Putsch in 1923, the Nazis had very little political success. After the Putsch, when Hitler spent nine months in prison, he decided to try and fain power through the democratic system which was in place, before overthrowing this system. However, this new approach was not successful before the 1930's. There was no electoral breakthrough for the Nazi party, and they remained a small Bavarian party. For many years they were the smallest party in the Reichstag, having even less seats than the Communists.
Sir Thomas More’s “adamantine” “sense of his own self” is juxtaposed with Henry’s conniving disposition. As a highly respected figure of the realm, the king’s annulment could not be passed without More’s sworn oath, however he refused which only ignited the conspiratorial egotism of the king. More’s disavowal to explain the reasons behind his opposition to the oath was an act of selflessness just as it is, paradoxically, an act of selfishness:
This was the factor which doomed the Directory to failure, no matter when it happened. This was aggravated by the circumstance absolutely no real, political efforts being made to make it work. Neither extreme knew what it wanted. The right wing did support monarchy, but not an absolute one. On the other hand, the left might have wanted more control at the centre and more equality throughout France, but not the rural based leveling of Babeuf.
He would have had no interest in it if the Indian National Congress had adopted Satyagraha and subscribed to nonviolence. He objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in an armed rebellion, but because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved, and left a trail of hatred and bitterness in which genuine reconciliation was almost impossible. This emphasis on nonviolence jarred alike on Gandhi’s British and Indian critics, though for different reasons. To the former, nonviolence was a camouflage; to the latter, it was sheer sentimentalism. To the British who tended to see the Indian struggle through the prism of European history, the professions of nonviolence rather than on the remarkably peaceful nature of Gandhi’s campaigns.
This benefited Germany because it was a step towards the unification of Germany, whilst still enabling Bismarck to have the individual power that he wanted. However this didn’t benefit the Liberals at al because Bismarck passed the laws that he wanted, and didn’t view them as allies. One of the main factor’s behind the reason why Bismarck was unsuccessful in my opinion is Kulturkampf (K), which was a divided attack on the Catholic Church due to Bismarck’s belief that the Centre Party represented a threat to the Reich. The campaign deliberately set the Catholics against the Protestants, and alienated them from the Reich. 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.
Nor were they able to afford to stand for election as due to bribery and corruption, the poor stood no chance of winning as they did not have the money to provide voters with what they wanted in return for their support.For democracy,thes is five basic essentials freedom,choice,accountability,representation and equality.The effects of the 1832 reform act were very limited. Despite extending the franchise, still only a tiny fraction of British men could vote in elections, 1 in 7.The politicians thought this would stop the demand for reforms but this act just furthered agitation for it.Historians disagree to a great extent on how democratic Britain was by 1914.This essay will examine the progress made between 1850 and 1914 before coming to a conclusion,which judges how democratic was Britain by 1914. The Extension of the Franchise was helped by the Second Reform Bill passed in 1867. In this act, all householders who paid rates with 12