With the introduction of Charles I in 1625, Scotland and England had relative peace. Charles I had hoped to combine the kingdoms of England, Scotland and also Ireland, but the English Parliamentarians were suspicious of this move. With the wars soon approaching, what were the causes of it, or were there more reasons to why the English Civil War had started? The end result of the war was countries without monarchs, who slowly tried to rebuild their political awareness. There were many events in the wars that had an effect on England, Scotland and Ireland, with these wars came many casualties and benefits and because of these facts, the wars were seen as a success or/and failure.
It can be agreed that the popularity of the rebellions and the slow reaction of the government made it possible for them to pose some challenge to the monarch and state. However, the lack of efficient leadership, causes and locations of the rebellions limited the amount of challenge posed. The protests in the sixteenth century could pose a dangerous challenge to the monarch and the state in the years 1536-69 because of their popularity. The rebellions, especially the Pilgrimage of Grace, involved a wide variety of people who shared similar grievances. Like Source W says: ‘the Pilgrimage of Grace mustered enough support to take
In 1646, Charles’ hopes of winning the civil war were beyond bleak following the crushing defeating at the battle of Naseby. Curiously however, the majority of the population wanted the reinstatement of Charles. Rule by Parliament’s ruthless County Committees were arguably worse than that endured during Charles’ Personal Rule. After four years of ‘a war without an enemy’ people sought the peace and stability associated with the monarch figurehead: Charles. Additionally, suspicions had risen of radical parliamentarians and the people were reliant on Charles’ return to stop this.
Some historians say that Charles is totally to blame for this war, while some say that parliament is totally to blame for it. I am going to tell you about it. There were many reasons for why the king was to blame one of the reasons for why the king was to blame was because of his money problems. Charles was not good with money and always had very little. He had closed down parliament and had to think of ways of getting money without asking the parliament's help.
However managing this new, more powerful nobility required more attention and careful direction than Henry VI was capable of giving. Henry saw no point in holding court, and found its gathering and banquets merely trivial. He rarely spent money in court or showed much correspondence with it’s members, which caused a divide between the King and his nobles. In ties with this, bastard feudalism could
The mistake that Madison made was going to war with Great Britain. They were worried because they believed that Americas “peace, prosperity and happiness… are in Great jeopardy… the general government have determined to make war on Great Britain” (I). There are many reasons that he should have not gone to war with Britain such as there is not enough troops to fight a good battle, this will only hurt our economy and bring us more into debt, and since we are always fighting Britain about something was this a real reason for a war? The first reason Madison should not have gone to war with Great Britain is this. There are not enough troops in America to successfully produce a war.
‘Disorder during Henry VII’s reign did not greatly threaten the monarchy’ I disagree with this statement as I think some of the rebellions that occurred during Henry’s reign, especially those that had to be resolved in battle, did pose a large threat to Henry’s position as monarch. ‘Disorder’ shows that the statement is talking about all types of unrest that occurred, so any riots and rebellions that happened in that period. I think that something that was a ‘great threat’ to the monarchy would mean; that those rebelling had the intention to kill or overthrow the monarch; that the monarch was forced to suppress the rising in battle; that group causing the unrest achieved its aims. Therefore, I think that a better fitting statement would be ‘although the disorder during Henry’s reign did pose a threat to the authority he was able to overcome any potential problems’. The sources however do show some evidence that Henry VII’s throne was not overly threatened by the disorder at the time.
The size of the city and the beauty of the city amazed Europe, and they proclaimed his authority. Rituals also boasted Louis’ power. Everyday activities such as walking and what you dressed in required elaborate rituals whose precipitants competed for the honor of their task. These things also gave Louis the loyalty of his subjects and the attention of everyone. Louis also governed in a matter that did not require input from others; he governed is a way that he wanted to, limiting the power of the nobility and aristocracy.
How far were Louis XVI's problems of his own making? The problems Louis XVI faced during his reign were partially due to his lack of leadership ability, his poor decisions and unwise actions. He created these problems by giving too much power to his nobles and hardly utilizing his power in his Divine Right. However, he did inherit an archaic system which was on the verge of collapse in Europe in general and the government of France had many inbuilt weaknesses already. He was faced with a tidal wave of new, enlightened ideas that was also fueled by France's involvement in the American war of independence.
The rebellions of 1549 may refer to a number of disturbances that occurred that year, however, only two really fit the definition of rebellion. The Western Rebellion and Kett’s Rebellion in East Anglia. These uprisings both possessed the numbers to cause the regime serious danger. Given that these occurrences overlapped, there was potential for the government to collapse under the strain. However, the localised aims of the rebellions and significant absence of gentry always meant that London was likely to remain largely unaffected.