Because he wanted as little interaction with Parliament as possible, he levied new custom duties called impositions to raise funds. Although Parliament’s power of the purse was ignored, it did not wish for serious confrontation and opted for peaceful negotiated. James’ court along with his foreign policy caused substantial political conflict within England. James’ favorite man in court was no doubt the duke of Buckingham. Buckingham controlled royal patronage and openly sold noble titles (also known as peerage) to raise money for the king and was also rumored to be his homosexual lover.
England lost. Money is another reason Charles I was having problems with Parliament. On the coast people had to pay something called ship taxes for the country to build ships etc for war. But Charles was short for money. He introduced this tax to the whole country and misused it by not using it for ship money.
He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”. Moreover, the Forced Loan only happened as a result of Charles dismissing the 1626 Parliament, forfeiting his opportunity of obtaining further grants for his wartime expenditure. Parliament had already been antagonised by Charles’ decision to dismiss them and now that Charles was forcing taxation on others in order to fund his wartime expenditure, due to disastrous foreign policy which Parliament largely disagreed with, it is clear that the Forced Loan had worsened relations greatly. In addition to this, the financing of foreign policy also affected the relationship between Crown and Parliament. As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies.
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.
Poor harvests played a big part in causing the French Revolution since people were already angry with the King spending too much on himself and not enough on the country and then extreme weather such as snow and rain comes and causes the people of France to get even more annoyed even though the poor harvest was not the King’s fault. The poor harvests later caused the price of bread to shoot up which in turn forced people (especially people in the third estate) to spend more on bread and less on luxuries such as shoes and hats. This in turn affected most factory owners as they would’ve had to fire workers or lower wages of the current factory workers. This put unemployment at a very high rate due to factories having to fire workers and the people who did get fired would have to starve most days because they were not earning any money. This whole incident wouldn’t have been so bad if the Three Estates system was fairer since having all three estates paying the same amount of tax would enable the third estate to spend more on food such as bread instead of having the third estate paying the most tax and the first and second paying close to nothing.
However he felt these men who previously serve in stores and tavern and other low occupation are now actually in the most honorable positions in the country while the descendants are poor humiliated and disfavored and cast down. The Crillo patience were wearing thin as there feeling of entitlement was becoming a faint reality, as they were being consistently ignored by the Crown. Bernal Diaz del Castillo charged that the crown failed to reward their heroic services with adequate recompense . The need for independence also stemmed from the need to be profiting from the expansion of the export economy which involved silver mining, trans-Atlantic trade and new frontiers but being refused that to take part , which also proved that colonial elite ignored their birthright . Creole thinking and Action which entailed needing freedom to exercise the provisions of being direct
There was no control over the king’s power which, in turn, led to an abundance of misgovernment. Louis XVI had to deal with the many problems left behind by his father, Louis XV, who was a poor leader and lead to the loss of the throne’s prestige unlike his father before him, Louis XIV. Louis XVI was unable to cope with State affairs, was indecisive and lacked in self-confidence. His wife and the courtiers of Versailles influenced him greatly due to his lack of firmness and self-belief. The gap between the rich and the poor widened.
On top of which the working class was expected to pay heavy taxes to finance the governments running. This obviously led to the feeling of resentment within the bourgeoisie who wanted a more equal system of governance in France. From this point of view they were the forerunners of the whole revolution but there was another side to this social awakening and that was the decrease of importance in the belief of God. The political discontent of France was one of
It had a well-developed industry and trade. The revolution played a vital role in how modern nations are shaped by showing how powerful the will of the people is. Its main causes were the changes that had taken place within the French society during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Like the American Revolution before it, ideals of Enlightenment played an influential part, like the concept of popular sovereignty and inalienable rights of man[1]. France previously had a very rigid social structure from during the ‘Ancien Regime’ and the French society started to be influenced by the idea of what the American Revolutionaries had achieved.
There was conflict between the Plebeians and the Patricians, a conflict of equality and even distribution of wealth. The Plebeians realized “the Patrician rule proved to be despotic as that of the kings.” (Morey W, 1901) After the wars, the Plebeians were left in a deplorable condition. While the men were serving in the army, their houses and farms were vandalized by the enemy, their families were driven away because they lived in the country. But the Patricians lived in the cities; they were protected by the city walls so they didn’t feel the devastating effects of the war like the Plebeians. The Plebeians having lost their misfortunes to war, they were reduced to more poverty and in great distress.