The Main Reason For The Defeat Of The Royalist Cause In The First Civil War Was The Leadership Of Charles l – Assess The Validity Of This View With Reference To The Years 1642-1646. In the period up to the outbreak of civil war in England, there were several reasons as to why the Royalist Cause and Charles were defeated. Many of his subjects came to question whether he was a monarch who could be trusted to rule within the ambiguous bounds of the unwritten ancient constitution. Firstly, Charles alone contributed heavily to the defeat of the Royalist cause. He was hampered by a speech defect which made communication difficult and communication with Parliament suffered as a direct result.
Henry was supported and manipulated by William de la Pole, Edmund Beaufort and his French wife, Margaret of Anjou. His uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and Richard Duke of York were opposed to Henry’s “peace at any price policy”. The unhappiness with the Kings rule can be reflected in Cade’s Rebellion in 1450, representing the frustration with the weak king. Though however, it was not this rebellion that lead to the outbreak of conflict. Henrys weakness was obvious, and his power was easily harnessed by those at court, in particular by his favourites, the Beaufort family and William de la Pole.
The cause of Buckingham’s rebellion was clearly due to Richard III’s powerlessness in the political aspect of his reign. He failed to grasp hold of his own Yorkist members and did so by being held responsible for the princes’ death.
As a result Edward decided to remove the Archbishop of York who had approved the marriage. This results in Warwick changing his alliance to Henry VI. Furthermore Edward IV had believed it was best to marry Elizabeth Woodville, for love rather than political reasons. This many nobles had seen as a mistake because their marriage did not create any alliances for England. Their marriage had also managed to alienate many of the nobles.
To What Extent Was Parliament More To Blame Than Charles l For The Failure Of Settlement In The Years 1646 – 1649? The failure to reach a constitutional settlement in the English civil war is something that holds many debates on who really was at fault. Both the parliament and King Charles l contributed toward the failure of settlement, but who was really to blame? King Charles l was a very stubborn character and I feel that his unwillingness to change heavily played a role in no settlement being secured. Oliver Cromwell held many negotiation sessions with King Charles l who characteristically quibbled whilst opening new negotiations with the Scots.
In this article we will be assessing whether Oliver Cromwell was a hero or a villain. In my opinion I think Oliver Cromwell was a villain. For an example he made sure that King Charles didn’t have enough votes in order not to go to trial, as he realised once King Charles was on trial, he would definitely be executed. My first point to prove Cromwell was a villain is when he closed parliament. The Independents had a strong following in the parliamentary army and had the support of Oliver Cromwell.
It was not the strength of the opposing forces, both liberal and conservative, but rather the stubbornness of Wilson that led to the defeat in the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson himself was an incredibly stubborn man and was the main reason the treaty failed in his hands. His inability to compromise caused him to loose support within the Democratic Party, thus resulting in the Senate defeat of the
The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
To what extent was Parliament more to blame than Charles I for the failure of the settlement in the years of 1646 to 1649? The division within the Parliament was indeed the most important factor which contributed to the failure of the settlements. Despite the parliament, the kings poor negotiation skills and the levellers becoming more influential. After the first civil war, two groups had emerged into parliament as MP’s had different views on what should be done with Charles I. This division made it harder for parliament to agree on settlements.
This idea, though pragmatic in my opinion, wasn’t as sensible to some people that wanted to stay a part of Great Britain and wanted to be loyal to the country, hence being called “Loyalists.” The people that were for the separation were known as Patriots, for they stood up for themselves and wanted to have a better democratic country, which is where they would truly represent the country rather than the Parliament dictating everything without consent. This dictation was known as “taxation without representation” because they literally didn’t have any