The main problem facing Henry was restoring faith and strength in the monarchy. He also had to deal with other claimants, with some of them having a far stronger claim than his own. To deal with this, Henry strengthened the government and his own power, at the expense of the nobles. Henry also had to deal with a treasury that was nearly bankrupt. The English monarchy had never been one of the wealthiest of Europe and even more so after the War of the Roses.
Source 10 says that the Commons were expecting the King to make concessions that should ‘be: relieving the resentment caused by purveyance, giving greater clarity to the law of treason and reforming troublesome laws” This source suggests that the Commons were undermining the King’s power and believing that their influence was greater than it was. Source 10 was proposed in 1612, before Parliament was re-established, this would suggest that the relations were already tense before James recalled them to gain subsidies as, as proposed by Sir Henry Neville, the Commons were expecting James to increase their political influence and accept a ‘middle way’, which the crown wouldn’t appreciate. The fact that the Source was proposed by an MP is likely to give an reliable account of the Commons expectation as it was directed at King James himself so Sir Neville would have been informing the King carefully of the course of action Parliament expected. Source 11 supports Source 10’s view in such that it suggests conflict was rife in this period as the Commons had “much difference of opinion” to the King which suggests that the Addled Parliament was short-lived as the Commons believed they had the right to argue. Source 12 gives the impression
One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
As part of the United Kingdom she would have the direct support and backing of Great Britain in the eventuality of a rebellion or invasion. In addition, a united system of government would discourage division and inefficiency amongst the two fronts, reinforcing instead a sense of camaraderie and loyalty for a united cause. A single government residing in Westminster would secure success in the middle of a great war. Furthermore, becoming part of the wider British economy, Ireland would benefit significantly as it would encourage prosperity, just as had been the case with the Scottish Union of 1707. Finally, in a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Roman Catholics would no longer be seen as the overwhelming and threatening majority but rather as cooperating fellow citizens, thus transforming Protestant views of fear and loathing.
How accurate is it to say that the Yorkists kings restored authority in England in the years 1471-1485? Both Richard III and Edward IV, two of the Yorkist Kings between 1471 and 1485, went some way to restoring royal authority. However, their successes in restoring authority during their reigns were certainly limited. While Edward IV did remove much of the threat of the Lancastrians, he was unable to control the nobility which led to the usurpation of Edward V’s throne by Richard Duke of Gloucester in 1483. 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.
Colbert needed to strengthen the French economy in order to bring Louis the money he needed to build the magnificent palace he had planned at Versailles and to fight wars with Spain. Before Colbert was appointed as Controller General there was a massive amount of corruption in the French tax systems with less than half the collected taxes reaching the central government. One of the most successful ways he managed to prevent this was to send Intendants to make sure the nobles in charge of tax collecting were giving the correct amount to the crown and also sought out people who were pretending to be nobles in order to get privilege. Colbert’s plan for the role of Intendants was they would be moved between localities every three years and therefore would be less inclined toward corruption; however the provinciality of France meant that in practice they were moved less often than this. Colbert’s successes include the introduction of tariffs in 1667.
However, the most accurate assessment of Bonaparte’s intentions as leader most probably lies somewhere in between these two views. He was undoubtedly ruthlessly ambitious, but nevertheless, as an autocratic leader, made his own ambitions and desires synonymous with those of France and its people. Tulard (C) is no doubt the most forceful in claiming that the personal benefits which arose from making France a more stable, and thus more prosperous country, had always been Napoleon’s primary motivation from the very outset. However, a number of flaws in his argument are apparent, particularly the fact that he neglects to consider the desires of the French population; a strong government capable of restoring much needed political and
The Federalist Party favored a strong central government and the wealthy class, while the Democratic - Republican Party believed this was the same ideas behind the corrupt British government. The supporters the Federalists accumulated only added to the republican’s suspicions of corruption. The two parties had different views on how to deal with conflicts; Federalists were in favor of keeping good relations with the British Empire, while Republicans were in support of keeping their promises to France. Federalists also supported a commercial society, while republicans support an agricultural one. The most influential leader of the federalist party could be argued as Alexander Hamilton, who had a brilliant mind when it came to U.S. economy.
The conquest of Granada proved to be invaluable for Ferdinand and Isabella, and highly signiﬁcant in the short term, granting the Spanish people a new found sense of unity and pride. Not only did the conquest provide the Spanish royals with more lands and titles, but also vast amounts of wealth, prestige, and the brief integration of Catholicism in an Arab culture. This laid the foundations for Spain’s great golden age, with the discovery of the new world being funded by spanish coin, leading to the expansion of the Spanish empire . Religious unity was ﬁnally upon Spain, after the eradication of Jewish and Islamic customs, resulting in a spanish peninsula that solely followed the customs of Rome and the Papacy. Thus Creating the biggest power in Europe, both economically and militarily, and arguably becoming the world’s ﬁrst superpower.
How successful was Henry VII’s foreign policy? Success is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “accomplishing a desired aim or result.” Therefore Henry’s aims must be clarified before success can be measured. According to some, people his greatest aim was the acquisition of wealth, through trade or otherwise, but it could also be argued that his greatest concern was that of security, be it personal, diplomatic or dynastic. He also aimed to earn prestige throughout Europe and to explore the New World, and he wished to avoid war, as it was both costly and unpopular. It is true that wealth was a great concern.