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.
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.
Pre-conquest England was a relatively well-governed and somewhat prosperous kingdom; the country was cleverly run. The division of land and the hierarchy as well as the coinage, trade, towns and frequent invasions all suggest that pre-conquest England was prosperous and well-governed. However, the possible threats from the Earls to the King, the Danegeld and the King not having an heir suggest, England was less prosperous and more unstable. In the eleventh century England had developed into a sophisticated and highly organised state. The kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and East Anglia had become earldoms.
The 1867 Reform Act played a significant part in Disraeli’s rise to the top of the Conservatives. After this Act was passed, Disraeli was seen as the natural successor of the party and therefore much of the opposition against him subsided from within the Conservative Party. However it is highly unlikely that Disraeli would not have become leader after Derby’s resignation if he had not passed the 1867 Reform Act, for the lack of opposition made him seem the only possible successor, at least in Derby’s eyes. This Reform Act could be seen as Disraeli’s greatest achievement prior to his second ministry, however it would be ludicrous to suggest that the main reason why he became leader was for this Act. Many of the Conservatives at the time realised that it was inevitable due to popular agitation and past attempts to pass similar acts that the act would be passed and thus knew that it did not involve an abundance of political skill other than that of oratorial talent to pass this electoral reform through the commons.
How serious was opposition to Henry VIII’s religious changes? Opposition to the religious reforms by Henry VIII was never serious, the opposition did have some potential to cause damage but the danger was never severe enough for worry because of the omnipotent “Most Christian King”. Opposition was only as serious as the support it had, which is why The Pilgrimage of Grace of 1526 was the most dangerous form of opposition. Henry ensured that disapproval from his kingdom would never threaten to undermine the longevity of the Tudor dynasty by using Cromwells key weapon: The Treason Act of 1525. This allowed Henry to eradicate any opposition that had potential to threaten Henry.
Henry VII had been a skilled diplomat and kept England out of major European conflicts. Therefore, Henry VIII inherited a state that was united behind the monarch, a state that had a decent European reputation, a monarchy that was wealthier than it had been for centuries, nobility that had been tamed and made to work for the Crown and a system of government that was competent and effective. Weaknesses Henry VIII inherited Henry VII was unpopular with his subjects as he took a lot of money away from the people of England. His Tax Collectors, Empson and Dudley were also unpopular due to their tactics of getting more money. All were greedy.
The possession of continental lands significantly weakened English central government in the period 1066 to 1216. Assess The possession of continental lands did not significantly weaken English central government in the period 1066 to 1216. Although the absence of the king occasionally created a need to raise a high geld or draw money out of the country’s economy, such absence also paved the way for great developments to the office of chief minister and the role of the exchequer. The development of the central role of ‘chief minister’ (later ‘chief justiciar’) is a clear example of the way in which continental possessions strengthened central government in the period. William Rufus’ appointment of Ranulf Flambard as an administrator of
Then identify how source evidences statement, perhaps quote or refer closely to source. Sources 1, 2 and 3 all support the statement to an extent, source and 1 and 2 for similar reasons. Source 1 is from a contemporary historian. Polydore Vergil is usually quite favourable towards Henry VIII, and therefore his rather critical assessment of the instability of the north and thereby the Scottish threat of invasion is all the more accurate. Therefore the source suggests that Henry’s inability to enforce the ‘newly-imposed head tax’ contributed not only to a lack of funds for wars with France, but also his failure to combat the tax boycott ‘gave [James IV] hope of undertaking something’.
Wilson’s ‘comfy and complacent’ campaign did play in role in deciding the 1970 election in favour of the Conservatives but it was only a minor one. Much more important was the combination of mistrust by the public over Labour’s ability to control the economy and most importantly; Labour’s complete failure to control the Trade Unions and the fears that this brought with it. Even a Labour minister himself, Richard Crossman admits in Source C that a ‘final warning on the trade figures’ put voters off. Whilst Source A does attack Wilson for his ‘highly personalised campaign’ and his ‘presidential’ style leadership, it goes on to suggest that there is no clear reason for why people changed their minds and voted Tory at the last minute. Despite his ‘too relaxed and assured’ campaign Wilson was not to blame but instead it was a combination of ‘unfavourable trade figures’ and Enoch Powell that swung the vote.
The colonists lacked the amount of supply that the British had, they made up with this by having better weaponry. The British had an upper hand with economics over the colonists during the war The leadership and support of the Americans was greater than the British leadership and support, which was an advantage for the Americans. The American general, George Washington, was an intelligent fighter and politician. The British leaders, Howe and Clinton, made errors during the war that strongly hindered their outcome. The American’s original support was their morale and familiar terrain.