From 1485 to 1495 Henry attainted eight people who had committed crimes against the Crown. Thomas Howard was an example of this who lost the title of Duke of Norfolk and his family land after Bosworth. However the Acts of Attainder were reserved at times, he was reinstated as Earl of Surrey in 1489 to help calm an uprising in Northumberland. This gave Henry good control and power over any powerful nobles, being able to suppress them or use them to his advantage. Lastly his Kingship was strengthened through threats of magnates.
How far was the outbreak of civil war in 1455 a direct result of Henry’s inadequacies as king? In order to assess the cause of civil war, we must understand it’s meaning. Civil war is defined as a war between factions or regions of the same country. In this particular by w05anettletoncase, it was a battle between the ‘Yorkists’, who were Loyal to Richard Duke of York, and the ‘Lancastrians’, who were Loyal to the King. There were many factors that aided the outbreak in 1455, however I believe that these factors were all results of Henry’s inadequacies as king, or could have been prevented if Henry was a more suitable ruler.
Additionally, suspicions had risen of radical parliamentarians and the people were reliant on Charles’ return to stop this. These reasons are the main factors for Charles’ support in 1646. Charles’ return to the throne would have meant an end to Parliament’s County Committees, which many felt were worse than living under Charles’ rule. A large portion of the population had suffered the brutal dominion of the County Committees, which only worsened as the war progressed and Parliament became more desperate to finance the war. Primarily made up of fiercely loyal Puritans, the County Committees were efficient in reaching the monthly quotas set by Parliament.
Stalin greatly feared older members of the party too as they knew the truth of Stalin’s rise to power and what Lenin’s testament contained which would have ruined Stalin’s career. Under Yagoda’s influence of suggesting communists questioned Stalin, his paranoia further developed and caused the emergence of the great terror. Undoubtedly Stalin felt he had to perform the mass purges because of his paranoia that he would be removed from power. As Stalin was in control this must be the main cause of the great terror as his desire to remain in power was the drive for allowing the great terror to happen. The Congress of victors was a short term cause of the great terror and only added to the main cause of Stalin’s paranoia.
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. At this preliminary stage, it seems to be most likely that the most significant and main threat to the power and authority of the monarch was the ambitious advisors, Somerset and Northumberland because of the way in which they respectively acted in their role. The main threat from the ambitious advisors during the period 1547-1553 was very prevalent due to the fact that at that time Edward VI was a minor monarch meaning that he had limited control over what happened in England. The two men who were responsible for controlling the country were the Dukes of Somerset and Northumberland in 1547-1549 and 1550-1553 respectively. Both of these men posed a significant threat to the power and authority of the monarch, this can be seen, most significantly, during Somerset’s rule as Lord Protector.
These acts were sometimes reversed as it was in this case, he was reinstated as Earl of Surrey in 1489 to help put down an uprising in Northumberland. This gave Henry ultimate power over his dangerously powerful nobles, meaning he could use them to his advantage when he needed to, as well as being able to suppress them. However, Henry VII was also unsuccessful in strengthening his authority as King as he continued to be increasingly paranoid about threats from foreign powers and pretenders. His weak hold on foreign policy in Europe meant that in 1491 France began to aid the imposture of Perkin Warbeck, a young man pretending to be Edward, Earl of Warwick, an heir to the English Throne with a stronger claim than the King himself. ...read more.
Finally, retribution, where Henry, desperate to find a culprit to blame brought a reign of Terror upon the men he believed were involved. The chaotic course of events, the contradictions of the depositions and the indiscriminate nature of the punishments all indicate the disjointed nature of leadership of the Pilgrimage of Grace. The Pilgrimage of Grace saw strong local leadership in its initial phase. The leadership was very localized in terms of its geography, issues and nomenclature. The term ‘Pilgrimage of Grace’ was initially coined by Aske and refers exclusively to the rising in Yorkshire between October and December 1536.
From 1754 through 1763, a world war was experienced, that brought many casualties. French and Spain had certain views on their trade empire in the colonies, and Great Britain had different views. This caused chaos and countries formed alliances with Great Britain, Prussia and the Iroquois on one side, and France, Russia, and the Spanish Empire on the other. The Treaty of Paris ended this war, and paved the way for many political, economical, and ideological alterations, such as an increase in British Empire, debt-ridden colonists and England, and bitter feelings of hatred. These alterations created new and worsened relations between the British and the colonists that would only continue to get worse.
This upset the Catholics greatly and led to the massive tension between the two groups. There is a mystery of who planned the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Most people believe that this event was premeditated by Catherine de' Medici, the widow of Henry II and mother of the three successive kings, Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III. She had a great deal of influence on her sons and influenced them to go against the Huguenots. There have been many situations in the past that persuaded people to think that Catherine was the instigator of the massacre.
To what extent was Charles I responsible for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement 1646-1649? It can be argued that to a large extent that Charles’ behaviour was responsible for his execution in the beginning of 1649. Losing both civil wars, escaping from the New Model Army and secret letters to his wife claiming that he will delay negotiations for as long as possible suggests reasons why he was executed. However, Parliament and the New Model Army were also factors which were responsible for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement as Parliament were divided and because the New Model Army were highly influenced from the Levellers. The King being the most important figure in England assumed he had all authority within England as he firmly believed in the ‘Divine Rights of Kings’ which is the belief that God has given the King his authority and so the King lives through God’s ‘legacy’.