Moreover, Richard III was very good at politics, having a lavish court and is good at using propaganda, yet he is highly unpopular among both the people and the nobility; his reign only lasts two years before the throne is usurped by Henry Tudor. Therefore, while both the main Yorkist Kings during this period did go some way to restoring royal authority in England, their successes were limited. Edward IV was successful at restoring royal authority as he was able to control the different regions of the Kingdom, such as the North and Wales, through the use of magnates. During his reign, Edward makes Richard, his brother, the duke of Gloucester, and puts Rivers in charge of Wales and his son. This meant that these areas, which were traditionally either pro-Lancastrian or prone to rebellion, were more controlled during Edward IV’s reign, which helped to restore royal authority.
How successful was Edward IV in restoring royal authority between 1461 and 1470? Edward IV did not begin with the whole world in his favour; there were many threats and oppositions for him to overcome as well as the fact he had to produce his own solutions to problems to achieve his ultimate power, for example an heir and a queen. This however was not an easy task as Henry VI s son Prince Edward was growing up fast, which intensified the pressure on nineteen year old Edward to get on with his arrangements. The threats mainly involved the rivalry of the Duke of Somerset, who was in the Beaufort line and had a distant claim to the throne. Whilst that was at the back of Edward's mind, he also had the inhibitory situation of Warwick and Clarence becoming over-mighty subjects.
How successful was Henry VII in increasing wealth of the crown? 24 marks Throughout Henry’s reign he made good use of his financial resources. Henry VII knew he needed a good financial base so he could run the country, but on a more personal note, he also saw the need to create a strong financial situation to be able to secure his reign and dynasty. As Caroline Rodgers states 'Henry was acutely aware of the importance of strong finances if he was to remain safely on the throne.' However, it has often been said of Henry, 'No man has ascended to the throne with such a lack of financial experience and resources as Henry VII.'
With the introduction of Charles I in 1625, Scotland and England had relative peace. Charles I had hoped to combine the kingdoms of England, Scotland and also Ireland, but the English Parliamentarians were suspicious of this move. With the wars soon approaching, what were the causes of it, or were there more reasons to why the English Civil War had started? The end result of the war was countries without monarchs, who slowly tried to rebuild their political awareness. There were many events in the wars that had an effect on England, Scotland and Ireland, with these wars came many casualties and benefits and because of these facts, the wars were seen as a success or/and failure.
Why did Henry VIII break with Rome? There are various reasons as to why Henry VIII broke with Rome. However, the main reasons are the State of the Church, the need for money, the need for more power, his undying love for Anne Boleyn and his strong desire for a male heir. The most significant reason for Henry’s break with Rome was his need for a son to be the successor to his throne when he died. Henry VIII believed that it was necessary to have a male heir so that he could make sure that the Tudor dynasty survived throughout generations.
Moreover, it wasn’t just a commoners revolt as a variety of classes were involved such as some nobility like Lord Darcy and the Percy’s and also gentry and priests stood against parliament. As well as this, the revolt was strengthened with the rebels holding Pontefract Castle and York. This meant that the rebels had a defendable territory and if in case of battle, the Pilgrims were ready with their own grounds which would make it more difficult for Henry to defeat the rebels when they seemed to be considerably stronger than Henry himself- this was a serious threat indeed. What glued the pilgrimage of grace together were their rebel
Two Forced Loans (parliamentary grants) where used for Henry’s second French War in 1522 and 1523 which raised £250,000. His Act of Resumption 1515 by claiming back royal lands given away in earlier reigns increased royal revenue. Wolsey was extremely successful in the area’s that where more important to Henry. On the other hand, some his greatest failures were acknowledged in this area, gaining him powerful enemies among the landowners and in Parliament. He conveyed poor management in achieving difficult tasks like in the anticlerical parliament of 1515 and had to settle for only half of what he had demanded in the Forced Loan standoff of 1523 as people resented the request and refused
Between the years 1547-1553 it can be argued that the main threat to the power and authority of the monarch was the actions of ambitious advisors, this is due to the fact that in this period Edward VI was king yet was a minor. This meant that it was necessary for there to be a regency who could run the day to day business of government whilst the king was coming of age. During Edward’s reign there were two men who had this job, the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of Northumberland, and it can be strongly argued that they both threatened the power and authority of the monarch. For example, Somerset created his own council, ruled by proclamation and had quasi-royal power whereas Northumberland attempted to change the line of succession and making his son king. This shows that these men can be considered as the main threat to the power and authority of the monarchy, however there are also other factors that threatened this ucg as the financial situation that England was in during this period, as well as the age and health of Edward and the actions he took during his reign.
However, due to the methods presented for American success, each party contradicted their opinions on the common man, democracy, and the constitution which foreshadows a great unstable nation. The viewpoint of the common man, perceived by the federalists and the republicans, split a rift between two oppositions. The federalists supported the rich and wealthy people so they could grow and trickle down their prosperity to the lower classes. Alexander Hamilton believed that the rich and prosperous should handle the nation due to the majority of the first class being well educated. He points out that while his population of supporters had the resources and knowledge to run the government, the lower classes basically had small or no resources at all.
By the end, the numbers in his army sky-rocketed from 180,000 troops, to 450,000, proving that Louis XIV was a very successful war leader. For this, many could argue that he was a good leader, but others who believed that it was despicable to tax so many citizens just for his well-being, thought the exact opposite. According to Bossuet, who created Divine Right Monarchy, leaders should act upon the will of God, some may believe that Louis did in fact act upon the will of God and others may think differently. Louis is certainly a very controversial leader who had his ups a downs, but in a broader view he did wonders for France and made it a very