How effective a king was Henry 7th? Henry 7th is very well know as the conqueror of Richard 3rd and father of Henry 8th, but how effective a king was he? He had to secure the Tudor dynasty, secure the nobility, keep financially stable and strengthen his foreign position without appearing weak. He dealt with these problems on the whole, extremely well, suggesting that he was an effective king, but he made some mistakes to. Henry 7th was ruthless in securing the Tudor dynasty.
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.
Her way of dealing with foreign affairs was very different to her Father’s in that Elizabeth tended to be more methodical in contrast to Henry who settled misunderstanding with battles and warfare. She was more likely to apply logic to her plans and think politically than she was to put war and conflict first. This mindset aided the queen in staying allies with Spain and Philip who were an important power in Europe during the Tudor dynasty’s reign. When Elizabeth became Queen in 1558 on the death of her half-sister Mary, England had a decent relationship with Spain. Mary’s marriage to Philip of Spain obviously helped to cement this even if the marriage itself was not a success.
France thought the war would not only help by stopping Germany’s increase in power. It would also help Napoleon III to regain his popularity after some of his failures after the commencement of his dictatorship, such as the Mexican adventure of 1867. I will now go onto the short term reasons. Firstly, Spain needed a king and Bismarck saw his chance to send Prince Leopold to become king there. France protested because they thought that having German influence on both sides would be too much if conflict would have occured.
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.
After Henry VII had died, Henry decided to marry Catherine of Aragon. This proved to be a very shrewd move as by doing so he avoided issues concerning the papal dispensation and a missing part of the marriage portion. This move also made sure that Anglo-Spanish relations were not further strained. Also Henry VIII’s England was included in the Holy-League which included Spain, The Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. It was formed by the pope and was Anti-French.
What this actually refers to is the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan states surrounding Ottoman Turkey and how best to deal with the developing situation there. Britain of course had key interests in this area for a number of reasons: stopping European war, protecting trade routes and also protecting the integrity on the British flag to name but a few. Yet to measure success we need a metaphorical ruler with which to do so, in this case it is the four key policies of: maintaining the balance of power within Europe; protecting overseas interests of trade and the empire; a fear of Russia; and weak support for constitutional states. The first scalar measurement we have is that of maintaining the balance of power within Europe, what this meant was that with the current situation in Europe no one power should be great enough to threaten
This theory was extremely important to Britain for several reasons. Firstly, whereas foreign wars were expensive and the outcomes were often unpredictable, peace was financially cheap. Diplomacy rather than military force was a far cheaper way of protecting Britain’s vital national interests. Therefore, to avoid Russia declaring war on the weak Ottoman Empire, Turkey was admitted into the Concert of Europe through the Treaty of Paris in 1856, and was effectively granted the protection of Britain against Russia. If Russia were given the opportunity to take control of the Ottoman Empire, they could have then used this territory and resources to become a more superior
This Alliance consisted of Holland, England, Brandenburg, Portugal, Savoy, and the Holy Roman Empire. At the time England did not want another War following the events of 1698 and as for France, Louis believed that another major conflict would be unnecessary. After Charles II’s death the European powers found themselves in a provocative and ambiguous situation that was turned on its head following Leopold’s declaration of War following the acceptance of the throne by Louis’ grandson in 1700. This ascension to the throne had
The Kellogg-Briand Pact which was signed in 1928, was a measure attempted between 1925 and 1929 to preserve peace and security in Europe because the main objective was to renounce war. Briand, the French foreign minister produced the plan to France and USA stating that they should sign. Kellogg, the American secretary of state was enthusiastic and then did it become, the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Overall, 65 countries signed including the Japanese and Russians to which they were agreeing that countries were allowed to fight only in self-defence. This was an attempt at preserving peace because it did not live up to its aim of ending war and it made no immediate contribution to international peace.