There are many historians that argue if the minority council had influence over the causes in either the long or short term causes of the War of the Roses. In John Gillingham’s book, ‘the War of the Roses,’ quotes that ‘the Lancastrian council ruled economically and well’,’ which meant that despite the ‘personal rivalries between the king’s uncles’ they made sure they kept it ‘confined to quarrels in the council chamber’ and the minority is described as being ‘remarkable’ due to the fact that the Anglo-Burgundian alliance
With every legend, there is always is theory, did shakespeare really write all of his work? There has been many people to argue that he didn't, and with strong evidence to back their argument. People believe that Edward de Vere wrote all of shakespeare's work, and that shakespeare stole from Edward de Vere. Edward de Vere had a very high education, he had connections to queen elizabethan and his background, he had a background in literature, and how his personal life connects to many
12 years later, he became a member of parliament for Cambridge. His ambition was to turn England into a republic. He did many good things but also some very bad things. Many people think he was a very bad person but some people believed strongly in what he did. Before the 1600s, when there was a war, people would have been picked off the street and been given weapons but not trained or qualified to fight.
To what extent was royal support the most important reason for why Pitt the Younger dominated politics in 1783-1793? In December 1783 William Pitt the Younger became Britain's prime minister at the age of 24. Even though he was unexperienced in the beginning, he managed to dominate the politics. Many people believe, that the key to his answer was king George's support but I believe that it was his great financial policies such as Sinking fund, Commutation act and many others. Pitt's financial policies in this period revealed his genius.
Trying Brutus Friends, Romans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears! Throughout William Shakespeare’s historical play, Julius Caesar, there is an omnipresent sense of questioning deriving from the play’s most controversial character, Marcus Brutus, and his sense of honor, or more, whether he has any honor to speak of. The debate concerning Brutus’ possible antagonism and inherent hubris isn’t unfounded by any means; however, the evidence of his honorability seems to outweigh anything supporting his lack of it. It is likely that without the presence of Caius Cassius, Brutus never would have even considered murdering Caesar, a man among his most beloved friends.
At the beginning of Act 1 Scene 2, Shakespeare introduces us to Claudius, and through literary techniques and some clues in the narrative we learn a lot about Claudius’ character and his state of mind. Before this speech we know that Claudius is the brother of Hamlet’s father, the king, and two weeks after his death Claudius has married the queen, Gertrude and has taken the throne instead of Hamlet, which would be the usual order. Throughout this speech he conveys a great sence of dishonesty in his words and the way his speech is layed out. The tone of the speech is very relaxed, fluent and confident, but its careful structure indicates that the speech is well rehearsed. Which in turn indicates he knew what was going to happen.
For example, Plato was writing with an idea of Athens in his mind, and attempting to improve on what many considered was a great democracy. Machiavelli was writing during the Italian Renaissance, and he had another century of history to study that Plato simply did not. One could say Machiavelli had been desensitized to Plato’s idea of a “Republic”, and he simply saw things in a very black and white point of view. Some also argue that his entire work was a pursuit of his ambition as a government official. Machiavelli saw the state and its components serving the “Prince”, while Plato would definitely put the state before any aspect of the individual.
Because the constitution was unwritten it was ever expanding to fit the needs of the Republic and its people. It is because of this “elastic” constitution, the republic lasted so long in Roman history. The early republic was controlled by an aristocracy. The patricians, who could trace their ancestry, back to the early history of the kingdom had the most sway over the government and the laws were made to keep them in power. (“The Roman Republic”) Over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were replaced and the result was a new aristocracy.
Genre research History The typical content of a history play would involve specific content in regards to what period of time in which the play is set. Shakespeare for example wrote many historical plays based on the lives of English kings. Shakespeare lived under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I so his plays are often regarded as Tudor propaganda because they often celebrate the founders of the Tudors. One of Shakespeare’s many historical plays was All is True, based on the life of Henry VIII of England. The play takes us through Henry’s life from his divorce of Katherine of Aragon to his marriage to Anne Boleyn.
Prior to the conflicts of the 18th century, the British form of government served as a model for those seeking a successful political system, and was admired for its equal distribution of power. However, during the years leading up to Revolution, political dissatisfaction initiated by Enlightenment ideas grew considerably. The Enlightenment was a period of philosophical free thinking and self betterment that inspired many revolutionists in colonial America. For instance, Enlightenment thinker John Locke’s argued that “political authority did not derive from the divine right of kings or the inherited authority of aristocracies but from the consent of the governed,” (Brinkley Alan pg 142). Jean Jacques Rousseau concluded that all people were entitled to participate in their government, as well as possessing liberties to political and legal equality (Brinkley Alan pg 142).