* It was ‘…plagued by the consequences of his usurpation’ – Andrew Pickering * He never had an opportunity to demonstrate his capacity for kingship. * His support and authority was never adequate either. * He never had the chance to prove himself in parliament because it got postponed due to risings in the South. * Much of the property seized from the hundreds of Buckingham’s rebels (mainly from South) fell into the hands of only Richards supporters (Mainly from North)– attempted Patronage – HOWEVER RICHARD PARDONED SOME OF THE REBELS * Betrayal of the Duke of Buckingham. * Archetypal ‘OVERMIGHTY
This basic form of opposition was never truly effective as their actions were simply put down by the government partly due to their failure to unite and lack of ideology and political demands. This was, however, not the only internal opposition to Tsar Alexander II with the “Going to the People” movement emerging in 1874. Here young members of the Russia intelligentsia went to the peasants breaching to them about their ideas about how life should be lived. This proved unsuccessful, they failed to appeal to the peasantry and the regime managed to arrest members showing them to be ineffective at this point. However, the populist movement developed from here, eventually splitting into two groups; the Black Partition and the People’s Will.
He also didn’t get on with parliament. They were his rivals. Below is a table with many of the problems Charles had with reigning England, Ireland and Scotland in parliaments point of view. Money Religion Power 1629 – 1640 He spends too much money on paintings and clothes, rather than spending it on our country. 1625 – 1649 He married a French Catholic, which have made rumours that they may take over this country.
The lack of unity opposition possessed was a key factor in its failure throughout the period. Division in opinion and ideology were consistent problems for opposition, which only fully united in the February revolution. Even then there were still divisions in opinion, however there was one common cause to unite behind. Other attributing factors such as heavy repression by rulers, well timed reforms and the continuing use of military force ultimately meant that opposition to Russian Governments was rarely successful in the 1855-1964. The peasantry were consistent opponents of Russian Government throughout the period, yet were rarely successful in doing so.
The truth lies most evidently in source 6, for the context of Henry’s reign gives an insight into these situations being rooted in Henry’s menial resources. Moreover, it could be proposed source 4 and 5 also conform to this reasoning, for it was his chronic lack of assets that led to his inability to sway European politics. Henry’s foreign policy failed because of a range of interchanging factors, yet they are all born from his definitive lack of resources. The other prominent leaders in European diplomacy were instrumental in Henry’s failed foreign policy. Source 4 and source 6 both illustrate the problems leaders like Maximillian and Ferdinand posed to Henry.
Although the Netherlands could be accepted as an enemy of France around 1650, even more so would be Spain. For years before, in the Hapsburg-Valois War and in the Thirty Years War, Spain and the Hapsburg family was a great threat to France. And even after Spain had weakened after those wars, Spain was still a great enemy for France during the War of the Spanish succession. France and Spain before never got along and even during Louis XIV reign they still were having difficulty accepting each
[4] Peter's frequent travels left Russia unmanned, often for months at a time. His absence often spawned revolts and rebellions among the people. [5] When Peter returned he showed no mercy in putting down the rebellions and asserting his absolute power over the country. This is when Peter's true cruelty was shown, his brutality in sentencing those who rebelled brought out a different man, a man who loved to see people suffer, a man we would see more often as his reign progressed. People who expressed negative thoughts about Peter's decisions were often executed before they had a chance to gain followers and rebel against the Tsar.
We've all noticed that portraits of Henry VII capture him as a very serious, timid and weak old creepy man who didn't really look as though he could take on the role of king in those times. However, after learning about how he claimed the throne, consolidated power and left a safe throne for his son my opinion seems to have changed. Over centuries Henry VII has been associated with the words 'cold, materialistic, miserly and rapacious', he may have spent money ruthlessly, but for someone who united the warring houses of York and Lancaster I find these words quite harsh. Whilst his marriage to Elizabeth of York could have be seen as an act of selfishness, it clearly showed wisdom and more importantly the fact that Henry envisaged peace. This was the perfect time and platform to use propaganda and create a godlike image for himself as it provided security for the country and reassured the people.
But, after the war his kingdom was ravaged, farmlands destroyed, and his subjects were poorer. It was this failure, the war on many fronts, that lead future Prussian war planners and diplomats to the idea of avoiding a multi-front war. Prussia, while possessing excellent human resources, lacked material resources and money. A great military leader recognizes his nation's limitations and plans accordingly. Catherine ruled through corruption, scandal, political reforms, and land expansion.
While the Tudor dynasty did not have many problems with parliament, the Stuart dynasty did not cooperate well with parliament at all. James I had many quarrels with parliament and Charles I became so enraged with parliament when they refused to grant him funds that he dismissed them all. Oliver Cromwell, who took control of England as military dictator after Charles I died, had his soldiers drive parliament out of the building. Charles II did not run into to much trouble with parliament, mainly because he was borrowing money from Louis XIV on the side. His successor and brother, however, James II was overthrown by William and Mary who were helped by parliament for the sake of Protestantism.