An example od strong leader would be Jamestown’s governor John Smith. Thoughtful and powerful man in every sense of the word. Then other important thing is that English colonists unlike spanish didn’t want a dominion over the native Indians the British men just wanted land… English North America was a place where businessmen sought investment and ordinary men and women wanted to escape from religious persecution. All they wanted was freedom and better life.As the great leader of Jamestown said:No man will leave England to have worse life in America”
Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers. The Kaiser's constitutional powers showed that he certainly had enough potential powers to be a authoritarian leader and i believe he fulfilled all his potential by using his power to 'ensure the constitution preserves the power of the elite' which was Bismarks main aim as the chancellor. The Kaiser could appoint and dismiss the Chancellor, dissolve the Reichstag with the consent of the Bundesrat, control Germany's foreign policy and serves as the commander of chief of the armed forces. The plethora of consitutional powers the Kaiser held clearly supports the
Wolsey changed areas of government such as the justice system and revised areas such as finances and parliament structure. His relationship with the King was significant, as he would be the higher power and would need to negotiate with the King and yet still get the correct decision. Wolsey managed his relationship with henry well, he tried to get the right outcome for the country but never forced it upon Henry, not damaging their relationship and keeping Wolsey in power. Wolsey had a poor approach with justice; in court he gained a poor reputation for taking bribes and his relationship with England’s nobility was poor to say the least. The financial approach was a tough period in finance; with a King that wanted to spend and go to war, and Wolsey had no choice but to bow to his majesty’s request.
How far do the sources suggest that James Callaghan was a good prime minister? As sources 1 and 2 would suggest James Callaghan was indeed a good prime minister. James Callaghan is a great prime minister who had the qualities that made him capable of running Britain but daunting economic circumstances led to his downfall. By the end of his government, Britain was deemed “The sick man of Europe”. Source 3 shows a clear disagreement though, as it states Callaghan “struggled to rule effectively until a vote of no-confidence” was called upon.
Some may say that Henry was largely successful in achieving his aims with his biggest success being the battle of the spurs in 1513. Henry VIII want to be seen as a different king to his father who had a bad reputation for being aware of his money and not engaging in many wars which the nobilities did not like. He started by giving away the crowns land and gave many titles to the nobilities to prove that he would be different to his father. Catherine of Aragon, who had married Henry’s brother Arthur was still kept in England after Arthur had died. Henry had immediately married her after all the delays that his father had caused.
Richard III in many ways could be described as either a good or a bad king, as well as hi actions before and during his short reign as King. Before Richard III became King, the people of England wanted him to be the protector of Edward V eldest son of Edward IV, thus giving him power until Edward V could make his own decisions. This proves that Richard III was thought of by the people of Britain as trustworthy of ruling their great nation. During his reign in October of 1483 Richard crushed an attempt at rebellion against him, this is one of his strengths as it proves that he was capable of retaining his power whilst under threat. He also had the Duke of Buckingham who plotted against him captured, tried and put to death, this shows that
Overall I disagree with this view because, even though some parts of domestic policy were successful for Henry VIII and Wolsey, most aspects of domestic policy failed. For example Wolsey used the Courts to get revenge on old enemies as well as giving justice to all people despite their status or wealth. Source 7 suggests that Wolsey was a useless chief minister and only survived because he knew how to please Henry. Source 8 agrees with source 7 but also says that he was successful in 'centralising English politics'. Source 9 was written by George Cavendish and gives a positive view of Wolsey's contribution to domestic policy.
‘Do you agree with the view that, in his years as Lord Chancellor, Wolsey strengthened Henry VIII's control of his kingdom?’ From sources 4, 5 and 6, one could argue that Wolsey did strengthen Henry VIII’s control of his kingdom. Sources 4 and 6 suggest that despite Wolsey’s fall from government, he still do further strengthen Henry’s control of his kingdom and did not utilise his time in government to make mistakes and short comings, however Source 5 disagrees and suggests Wolsey utilised his time in government to exploit his position and punish nobles. Source 4 strongly argues that Wolsey strengthened Henry’s control of his kingdom during the time in which Wolsey had the position to do so. This is shown in the source material as it states: ‘I never saw this kingdom in better order, quietness and obedience than it was in the time of his authority’ – This shows that George Cavendish, Wolsey’s servant, observed that during the time in which Wolsey influenced the country through his position, the country was orderly, quit and obedient. This supports the view that Wolsey strengthened Henry’s control of his kingdom as it shows a firsthand view that Wolsey was able to secure order and peace during his rule as Cavendish saw ‘order, quietness and obedience’.
* Parliament was not part of the routine machinery of government, and ruling without one made him a tyrant. Past historians refer his 11 years without Parliament as ‘The Eleven Years’ Tyranny’. * Historian John Morrill Identified several grounds on which Charles could be charged with legal tyranny, but the problem with most of the reasons are that they stemmed off of what we did during before and after the 1630s than what he did during the 1630s. * Historians have also
According to Machiavelli, being praised mustn’t concern a prince who wishes to continue ruling. In the book The Prince, Machiavelli noted that “A man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good”(40). A successful prince has two kinds of traits- praiseworthy and despicable, the latter of the two must not cause him hatred. The prince must present himself as an honest man, while using his vices. A good example of a modern day Machiavellian prince is America’s 43rd president, George W Bush, from the moment that Bush decided to run for President, his staff has fabricated an image of George W as a successful CEO, an avid Christian, effective governor, and all-around nice guy.