Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor. However, although these events showed that he was not controlled by Warwick, there were many failures that outweigh his successes when it came to dealing with the over mighty subjects. Edward was said to have ‘alienated’ Warwick, which then caused him to become over mighty. Warwick was the biggest land owner in England and therefore had a lot of power, maybe even too much power as some people thought when it came to Edwards’s decision. Edwards marriage to Woodville was said to show favouritism as he subsequently gave the Woodville family titles and arranged the best marriages possible for Elizabeth’s sister, meaning that Warwick’s daughters did not get the desired marriages.
Pitt's financial policies in this period revealed his genius. However, there are numerous other explanation for his success e.g. weak opposition, his character. He was member of Tory political party and a role model, how a great prime minister should look like. After defeat in the American war of independence (1775-1783), Britain was in major financial crisis.
(30) During the personal rule of Charles I he was able to finance his government effectively to a certain extent. Schemes such as tonnage and poundage and isolation foreign policies helped bring in huge amounts of revenue and cut costs, but were only effective during the earlier parts of personal rule. As his rule went on opposition towards his policies slowly but surely grew. The public reaction following the John Hamden case and the parliamentary grievances starkly highlight this. Thus Charles was only able to effectively finance his government during the initial years of his personal rule, however as resentment grew towards his governance it had a direct impact on his ability to run and finance his regime.
The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.”- Jim Rhon. A good leader should allow there people to be secure, and allow the people to grow financially, and he/she should be able to represent there peoples values. Philip II didn’t do any of that. Philip was a murderous oppressor, who acquired large debts from his military actions, and imposed high taxes on his citizens which evidently led to his ultimate failure. Philip is called close minded and said to be selfish with his money.
Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. This therefore often renders opposition as a form of scrutiny meaningless and also means that it is difficult for the executive to be held to account. Party loyalty is also very strong. The power of prime ministerial patronage renders many MPs excessively docile and loyal, hence the term ‘lobby fodder’. With the rise in the professional politician many prefer to remain loyal in order to gain power and move up in the hierarchy as opposed to become a rebel who remains in the back benchers.
How successful was Edward IV management of the Royal Finances? Edward IV inherited the throne from Henry VI who had left the Crown in serious debt, therefore it was up to Ed to right this by earning not only enough to run the country, but also to pay back the debt. Furthermore a medieval king was expected to “live of their own” which meant that they should be able to afford the running of the country through their own lands and not need to ask parliament for tax which leads onto my next point in which the king should not rely on Parliamentary grants too much. I think that to a large extent, Ed was successful in managing the Royal Finances because I think that he fulfilled all of the criteria. Firstly, he was successful in managing the royal finances by innovatively using the Royal Chamber to efficiently manage the royal income.
How far do the sources suggest that James Callaghan was a good prime minister? As sources 1 and 2 would suggest James Callaghan was indeed a good prime minister. James Callaghan is a great prime minister who had the qualities that made him capable of running Britain but daunting economic circumstances led to his downfall. By the end of his government, Britain was deemed “The sick man of Europe”. Source 3 shows a clear disagreement though, as it states Callaghan “struggled to rule effectively until a vote of no-confidence” was called upon.
These nobles expected a monopoly of influence over the king. As a result, the king had to perform a balancing act between expectations of the nobles and the King’s own freedoms of action to appoint his own councillors. The King needed to stop one faction from dominating and not exclude people of royal blood, something that Henry would struggle with. Although Henry was not directly responsible for the growth in power of the nobility, many of his actions certainly exacerbated the problem. More powerful nobles meant hat Henry had to dispense patronage fairly or risk upsetting and isolating powerful nobles.
Augustus seems to rule with his wealth and influence over the people, and those in government positions. In my opinion he is more focused on keeping the Aristocracy happy, for as according to Crone in her examination of pre-industrial societies, the holders of wealth are the key to maintaining leadership and order. Michael Haukaas made an excellent statement as well saying “Himself being wealthy is not enough, as evidence by the war following the death of his father at the hands of Brutus et all”. This statement shows how Augustus also had control over the soldiers as well as the power of his wealth. Just like the podcasts mentioned, Augustus was a powerful man due to his financial stability and the fact that he had made a lot of loyal and close friends with the men of elite
The French Kings after Louis XIII enjoyed such power until the last half of the 18th century under Louis XVI reign. Although being all powerful in government and having one person making all the rules in the country did have its obvious draw backs at the time. In an absolutist monarchy one of the biggest factors that would ultimately lead to the monarchies reduction in power and eventually the end of the monarchy all together was the economic pressure that this style of government places on society. Louis XIII and Louis XIV failed to get an independent source of revenue to be able to fund the lavish life stlyes that the royal family and the high nobles became accustomed to. Even with the many flaws at this point in European history absolute monarchies were in most of the key countries in Western