How far do these sources agree that Wolsey's foreign policy was defensive?
How far do these sources suggest that Wolsey's foreign policy was defensive? Wolsey was a very cautious man, he satisfied Henry's requests as well as using his requirements to earn and achieve his own positions. Wolsey was only fifteen when he entered Oxford University, one of the best universities in the whole of England. This demonstrates his firm personality, he wasn't born into a noble family and is believed that his father was a cattle dealer; this meant he had to sacrifice himself to achieve his positions. He ended up as one of the most powerful men in the whole of England; some say he was more powerful than Henry himself. Being a religious believer may have influenced Wolsey on to make peace instead of provoking war, these sources are mostly written in a colloquial language and all commonly agree that it was a waste of money to invest in the French territory. Source F disagrees with the statement as it provides the reader with several facts of Wolsey's policy implying that his policy was to satisfy Henry with enough chivalric duties such as battles. ''... he was internationally regarded as a figure of splendid chivalric kingship...'' This is weighted towards the fact that Wolsey's policy was more about advertising how powerful Henry VIII was, rather than making peace with other powerful countries such as France and Spain therefore, disagreeing with the statement
To what extent did Henry VII reduce the power of the nobility
To what extent did Henry VII reduce the power of the nobility? Henry VII reduced the power of the nobility to a large extent in contrast to King's who had gone before him. Henry did however decrease and increase the power of the nobility by; the implementation and enforcing of restricting laws, calculated mercy and aggression towards his enemies and by keeping nobles within the structure of his government. The first two are clear reductions of power, however the last factor in the change of power is quite the contrary, he in fact increased the power of the nobility. Having said that overall he did diminish their power far beyond what any King had done before. The implementation and enforcement of new and old laws was the second most important factor in how Henry VII reduced the nobility. The use of attainders was heavily taken advantage of by Henry VII, although both his predecessors Edward IV and Richard III had the ability to appoint attainders on whoever fought against him, he took it to new extremes. A clear example of this is in the Parliament of 1504 where Henry issued 51 attainders, in contrast to the amount Edward the fourth issued from 1463 up until his death... 27. This just puts into context the amount of suppression that Henry VII used against his nobility, using his law enforcement power as far as he could take it. Another thing it shows is the reduction in
Using all the sources, and your own knowledge, assess the extent to which Henry VIII was committed to Protestantism.
Henry's commitment to Protestantism can always be questioned. His reign marked the beginning of the English Reformation, but many of his actions were contradictive to those of a Protestant King, and there is evidence to suggest that Henry was both Protestant and Catholic. Henry began his reign as a Catholic King, even receiving the tile 'Defender of the Faith'. This supported by source 3 which states that Henry 'stood right behind his church'. It is also reflected in source 2 where Cromwell states that Henry thought the Protestant Tyndale's book 'will infect and corrupt the whole realm'. However Henry's commitment to Catholicism soon declined as he sought a divorce with Catherine of Aragon in favor of the Protestant Anne Boleyn. As the Pope refused to make a decision on the matter, Henry looked more towards ways to threaten the Pope and pressurize him to grant the divorce. He charged the Papal legate, Cardinal Wolsey, with praemunire in 1529 and later the whole clergy of England. He then forced the clergy to pay a fine recognise him as Supreme Head of the Church and began to suspend payments to Rome. By 1533 Anne was pregnant and Henry had to pass even more Acts to break with Rome, in order to grant his own divorce and make the child legitimate. The Act of Supremacy, Succession and Annates all brought the power originally belonging to the Pope to Henry. The Ten Articles and
Labour weakness was the most important reason for Conservative dominance from 1951 to 1964. How far do you agree?
Labour weakness was the most important reason for Conservative dominance from 1951 to 1964. How far do you agree? Between 1951 and 1964, the Conservative's time in power, the Labour party were providing ineffectual opposition. One of the reasons for this was their internal disputes over issues such as unilateralism. However, there were also more important reasons for Conservative dominance, such as the economy and growing prosperity in Britain, the property owning democracy and the greater availability of credit, modern conveiniences and luxury items. Prosperity during this time was growing, and people were in general wealthier than they had been before. A reason for this could have been the manipulation of the economy by the Conservatives; their stop-and-go stagflation lowered and rose taxes in accordance to the election date in order to gain more votes. Though they had no real long-term economic plan and their wily manipulation was often criticised, it did help them to gain votes. The wages also rose during this time meaning people were able to more freely afford luxury items and other things such as mortgages, which links to the property owning democracy. This prosperity heavily contrasted to Labour's post-war government, when the country was still in the grips of rationing and shortages, and the public's remembrance of this time would not be favourable. They would not
How far do you agree that the building of castles was the main reason why the English were unable to mount a successful challenge to William's rule?
How far do you agree that the building of castles was the main reason why the English were unable to mount a successful challenge to William's rule? I agree to a certain extent that the 'building of castles' was the main reason the English were unable to mount a successful challenge against William's rule. Other factors which somewhat contributed as well would be: the lack of effective English leadership, uncoordinated rebellions and the 'Harrying of the North'. One way in which the Normans took control over an area to prevent the spread of rebellions was by building castles and fortifications. There is evidence of around 500 motte and bailey castles built during William's reign to symbolise the Norman strength and wealth. To invade a fortified castle to regain control over land was a very hard task for the English locals. Compared to other techniques of keeping the English under control- castles appeared as political statements (geopolitical, much like the church), they always reminded the English locals of who was in charge and allowed the Normans to have many holdouts in an event of an uprising. The castles were placed strategically at important points, mainly 15 miles apart, in the centre of towns or in locations which allowed the Normans to control the countryside or river crossings- this way, not only did William control a particular region for any opposing activity,
Why did the Liberals lose the 1874 election?
Why did the Liberals lose the 1874 election? The reason for the Liberal's 1874 election defeat is a common area of debate amongst historians. Historians often argue that it was the rise of the Conservative Party and Disraeli that caused the Liberals to lose support. Others argue that it was the unpopularity of the vast amount of the Liberal Party's policies that lost them the votes of the masses. In addition to the lack of popular policies, it is often put forward that the growing divisions within the Liberal Party caused its defeat. Finally, historians such as Vincent regularly argue that the election defeat was due to the external circumstances of the time. Watts argues that it was Disraeli's leadership of a more appealing Conservative Party that caused the Liberal election defeat. He emphasises the importance of Disraeli's tactics in opposition, especially his refusal to accept office after the collapse of the Liberal government in 1873. This further weakened the Liberal Party as it was forced to limp on for another eighteen months and further secured the Conservative election victory. Disraeli's numerous speeches also contributed to the loss of Liberal support such as his speech at Manchester in 1872 in which he attacked Gladstone's policies as 'endangering national institutions'. These speeches appealed to all aspects of society and played on the middle class
'Wolsey's foreign policy reveals that he had no other aims than to exalt his master's power and his own glory' How far do you agree with this verdict?
'Wolsey's foreign policy reveals that he had no other aims than to exalt his master's power and his own glory' How far do you agree with this verdict? Wolsey's political principles have been subject to much criticism since his death and to this day historians continue to disagree regarding its validity. The title denies that Wolsey had any 'guiding political principles'1, however traditional accounts of his foreign policy have attempted to attribute to Wolsey a coherent policy and motivation. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century the emphasis was on Wolsey as 'impresario of a European, balance of power'. A.Pollard2 considered that the motive of Wolsey's foreign policy was primarily concern for the papacy; he considered that ' as long as Wolsey pulled levers of English diplomacy Henry VIII remained the favourite son of the Roman church'. Others argued that Wolsey was first and foremost a crusader of peace, supported by his part in the treaty of London in 1518 and the Field of the Cloth of Gold meeting in 1520. This theory however must account for Wolsey's tendency to abandon his aims of peace in order to appease Henry VIII's desire to prove himself through successes on the battlefield. Henry VIII's attempts to emulate his warrior hero, Henry V, must surely have caused problems, if indeed peace was Wolsey's ultimate gain. Scarisbrick explains the discrepancy and argues that
Assess the reasons for the decline in frequency of Tudor rebellions
Assess the reasons for the decline in the frequency of rebellion in Tudor England. During the course of the Tudor period, the frequency of rebellions fluctuated greatly, however it can be argued that they were mainly concentrated at the beginning of the era. For example during the reign of Henry VII, he faced six serious revolts, three of which were dynastic and Henry VIII had to deal with two of the most popular revolts of the time, the Amicable Grant (1525) and the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536). This comes as no surprise as the battle of Bosworth and the rocky establishment of the Tudor dynasty made their position on the throne exceedingly vulnerable due to numerous pretenders and claimants seeking to overthrow the crown. Arguably, 1550 marked a major turning point in the frequency of rebellions as there were only 5 rebellions in England from then on till 1603, possibly due to the Elizabethan church settlement, the changing attitude of the ruling elite and the improved maintenance of political stability under Mary and Elizabeth. Nevertheless it is difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for the decrease in rebellion occurrence. It can be maintained that when the Tudor establishment became more secure, alternative claimants to the throne 'died out' and people became more accustomed to the Tudor rule. Henry VII took steps to try and eliminate dynastic threats by executing
To what extent was James I responsible for his financial problems?
James Collinson L6 12 To what extent was James I responsible for his financial problems? James I was the first Stuart king of England. He came to England with no experience of running a country as big as England. He had not been brought up so he would be ready to rule a country like England. It could be said he would have very little idea about the finances of a country as large as England. When James came to the English throne he had a debt of just £2000 however in 1606 just 3 years after his accession he had amassed a debt of £700,000. Whichever way James is looked at, the conclusion can be drawn that he was extravagant with money and took a no expense spared policy on state occasions. For example he spent £20,000 on his coronation. This was the first problem for James. He came to power in 1603 following Elizabeth's death. As a result of this he had to organize her funeral, which would have cost any monarch a lot of money (but not as much as he spent on it). In the end this cost him £17,000. He then had to organize his coronation. James was in no mood to make this a cheap occasion. It was a once in lifetime celebration and it needed to be good. This cost him £20,000. He had inherited these 'problems' but made them more expensive by being extravagant and the fact he had over rated the English throne made him spend even more on them. Although Elizabeth
Success in the Falklands ensured Thatchers election victory of 1983 Discuss.
Success in the Falklands ensured Thatcher's election victory of 1983 From April until July, 1982, a british task force was sent to the Falkland islands, by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to reclaim the Islands from the Argentineans. At the next election, Thatcher won a landslide, taking a 144 seat majority over the second placed Labour party. Clearly, such an increase of seats had to be caused by several factors, one of which can be seen to be the a, conflict. Many who say that the Falklands conflict was a major factor in ensuring the landslide win that the Conservatives achieved was the increased sense of patriotism that was felt within the country as a result of the retaking of the Islands. This united the country behind its leader, Mrs Thatcher as it was her that was seen, as commander of the forces, to have won the conflict. This served as a powerful act of propaganda for the Conservative party as is showed that is had a strong leader. This idea of Thatcher as a strong leader was evident throughout the conflict and was a powerful tool for ensuring election victory. She was shown to be a strong leader by sending in the task force to retake the Islands without waiting for approval from either the UN or the USA, and before full negotiations for a peaceful settlement took place. This increased the idea of Britain as a great power once more, that it did not need help from
