Why did a campaign for women's suffrage develop in the years after 1870?
History GCSE Coursework, James Cunnington Why did a campaign for women's suffrage develop in the years after 1870? Women in the hundreds of years preceeding the crucial date of 1870 had always faced a life that they would be better of in as men. They had few, if any, rights to the things they owned, even there own children and they could effectively be bought or sold by parents and prospective partners alike. A woman belonged first to her parents then to her husband and was expected to carry out certain duties according to her class, without hesitation or complaining. The closer we get to the 1870s, the more middle and upper class women start to realise that the duel roles of child bearer and home maker are not the one that they need to be confined to. Shifting views in society about the role of women happened over time but nothing was really accomplished until 1839 when the 'Custody of Infants Act' was passed which meant that women could now take custody of her children in the then unlikely event of a divorce. It was, many believe, the first step on a long road to equality which would take well over 150 years. The way in which women were treated increased the level animosity to such a point that the government started having to make concessions to women in the form of such Parliamentary acts as the aforementioned 'Custody of Infants Act.' Also the 1857 'Matrimonial
Why did Civil War break out in 1642?
Why did Civil War break out in 1642? Many factors led to the outbreak of civil war, while there can be no one certain cause, many different events and issues contributed to the war. This is a topic of much debate, many historians have differing views on the start of the war and the events that led to it. The Whig interpretation is an overriding belief that parliament should have had more control. While studying the period in the eighteenth century, they were influenced by their time, they thought that England had the greatest Parliamentary system in the world, and thought that a civil war was inevitable as the child (parliament) was beginning to conflict with its parent (the monarchy and Charles I). They blamed the war on long term political causes like the tension between the King and Parliament. Marxist historians from the 1920s through to the 1950s believed that events were caused by class conflicts. They studied the ideals of Karl Marx, perhaps one of the most influential figures in the birth of communism, they came to the conclusion that the Gentry was attempting to gain power by attacking the old order of things, the King and the Aristocracy. They cited long term social causes of the war as the grounds for conflict. Revisionists have also studied the Civil War, in the latter half of the twentieth century, they put stress on the roles of the individual and how the
Why did Civil war break out in 1642?
Why did Civil war break out in 1642? King Charles I declared war against parliament on the twenty second of August in 1642. There were a lot of victims to this war; approximately one man out of every ten was killed. People who were not physically affected had lost a lot of their property; this includes houses, land and other possessions. In my opinion, Civil war did not break out due to King Charles I. I think that the events that led a civil war started almost a century before King Charles' reined; when Henry VIII became the head of the Church of England. To do so he had to have Parliament's agreement so that he could claim that everybody agreed with his new position. Like this King Henry made Parliament feel more powerful than they ever were. So the Parliament's strengths kept building up till they had enough power to rebel against their own King, The Civil war broke out unexpectedly. Before 1642 there were several events that could have triggered the civil war, but most of these were sorted out by 1641. King Charles I could not rule the country on his own, he needed parliament's help to pass on new laws. By the end of his reign he had lost control over Scotland as well as London, due to an attempt at governing without Parliament. Charles' choice of advisors was very poor. This is shown when he appointed people like Strafford to be an earl. In the eyes of many people
Why did neither the CPGB nor the BUF have much political impact in 1930s Britain?
To What Extent Could the Labour Government of 1924 be considered a Success? The performance of the first Labour government was affected to a large extent by the circumstances in which it took office. The peculiar outcome of the December 1923 election, (Conservative lost almost 90 seats, and declined from forming a government) meant that MacDonald was requested by King George V to form a government. However, as Labour was in a minority, support would be needed from the Liberals to pass legislation. This therefore limited Labour's room for manoeuvre, and meant that no radical socialist action could actually have taken place. Therefore, the first Labour government could only have been an apprentice, and a chance to show their ability to govern the country successfully. The appointment of a Labour government in 1924 was widely regarded by contemporaries as an event of great social and political significance. However, the opinion of the opposition was different- Winston Churchill even called it a 'serious national misfortune'. Many on the political right expected attacks on private property and established institutions. Other more extreme predictions were that the government would overthrow the monarchy and nationalise the country. However, MacDonald had no intention of trying to fully introduce socialism- the lack of majority ruled that out. Instead, he aimed to show that
What was Chartism and why did it fail?
Unit Title: Agitation and Reform in Nineteenth-Century Britain Kayleigh Giles-Johnson ________________ What was Chartism and why did it fail? The Chartist movement originated in the midst of political frustration and economic hardship of nineteenth-century Britain. In this essay we will be looking at Chartism, analysing its purpose and significance, before secondly discussing how Chartism came to fail and some of the reasons that were to blame. Chartism was a working class movement aimed towards political reform from the years 1838-1848, named after the People’s Charter of 1838. It was a result of the many grievances of the working class, most arguably a deep sense of disappointment with the Great Reform Act of 1832 which had failed to deliver the political voice and voting rights they had hoped for, with five out of every six working men still not enfranchised as a result. This and a number of other reasons, including generally poor living and working conditions, convinced the workers that unless they organised themselves effectively, their issues would continue to be ignored (Lynch, 1999, p.174). They thought that unless they got more working class MPs in Parliament, they would never be able to improve things for themselves, resulting in the realisation that their main need was to obtain the vote. As a result of an alliance between the London
'The Turn of the Screw'
Prose Assignment: 'The Turn of the Screw' To what extent is our appreciation of the story affected by the choice of narrator? Henry James makes the governess the narrator because she keeps the readers' interest by also being involved in the story as a main character. However, being involved on this personal level, it can make the governess exaggerate at times and be over-emotional. Her determined and curious nature makes her an ideal candidate to explore the mysterious happenings, however her imagination keeps the reader in suspense, as we are never sure how much she has exaggerated the story. This also adds tension as the full picture is never revealed. This choice of narrator is therefore challenged by Susan Hill's description that a narrator should be 'unimaginative and straightforward' as the governess' increasing exaggeration, hysteria and ambiguity make her less than straightforward. The governess's character is established at the beginning of the novel when she meets the master. Her impressionability is displayed when he immediately charms her. She has little experience at being a governess as it says she is 'The youngest of several daughters of a country parson', which also indicates her simple country background. Her naivety also makes her very romantic and imaginative. James writes that she has '...come up to London from the country' which hints that the governess
To what extent should changes in the relationship between monarchy and parliament from 1529 to 1640 be seen as arising from divisions over the future of the church?
Helen Ryland 13.4 To what extent should changes in the relationship between monarchy and parliament from 1529 to 1640 be seen as arising from divisions over the future of the church? Until he entered his middle years, Henry VIII was faithful Catholic. His main concern was to gain control of the Church's vast wealth rather than radically change the liturgy. However, this all changed when Henry tried to put aside his first wife because she had not borne him a male heir (a serious matter for the security of the state). The pope's refusal to consent led Henry to reject papal authority and declare himself head of Church by the Act of Supremacy in 1534. He was careful to act in conjunction with Parliament. Thus for a time England remained in most respects Catholic. This is typical of the Post Revisionist view as they saw that different issues could lead to disputes between King and Parliament, but within a framework that can be seen as co-operative. It wasn't until the reign of Edward VI (1547-1553) that reform really took hold. In 1548 an English language order for the administration of Holy Communion was published and the following year a complete Book of Common Prayer appeared. England became a thoroughgoing Protestant state. This is where the monarch encountered its chief parliamentary obstacle. They resisted every step of the Protestant reformation. During Mary's reign
To What Extent Was England A Protestant Country By 1547?
To What Extent Was England A Protestant Country By 1547? Before it is possible to begin to analyse the extent to which England had turned to Protestantism by 1547, it is necessary to establish a solid understanding of what Protestantism actually is. Protestantism is a branch of Christianity that split off from Roman Catholicism in the early 1500s which protested against a number of the ideologies of the Catholic Church. Through sola fide and sola scriptura, these Protestants rejected many of the Seven Sacraments that the Catholic Church abode to, as they felt they were unnecessary and merely money making tools for the Church in Rome. With these ideas in mind, it is now possible to scrutinise whether or not the Church within England in 1547 conformed to these ideologies. Although there is a certain amount of evidence which would suggest that England was moving towards Protestantism, there is also a great deal of evidence which would suggest that there was still a considerable distance to go before England could be fully classified as a Protestant country. Some historians argue that by 1547 England had become a Protestant country and there is some evidence which would reinforce this theory. Firstly, the Break with Rome during the 1530s showed that England could no longer be regarded as Roman Catholic as the Pope was no longer prominent within England. Therefore, with the
Was it the weaknesses of the Royalists or the strength of their opponents which best explains the outcome of the first Civil War by 1646
Was it the weaknesses of the Royalists or the strength of their opponents which best explains the outcome of the first Civil War by 1646? When a country is plunged into Civil War the effects are cataclysmic, brother fighting brother. This intensifies when religion is involved, Because it takes men's beliefs and puts drive and anguish behind them, claiming the other side is something, based on acts that the enemy has already committed, which is a powerful tool, this form of propaganda can inflict a damaging blow to the war efforts of both sides. A war of words is one thing, but truly to win or lose a war it is based on many things, but the key is leadership, or lack of it, and could this sway an entire battle? And is it Possible that each battle was just a piece in the puzzle of Charles grand plan to win the war, but inevitably lost it. Rally the troops! Leadership lost the civil war! Throughout the entirety of the war many battles, were fought , Edge Hill (first in 1642) for example, was a strategic challenge. Each of these battles would decide , who had the upper hand, logistic wise and ideologically, Moral blows would shape the battlefield. Parliaments victory wasn't full proof, it wasn't one sided, yes parliaments leadership did triumph but was it won by this? Or was it Charles generals poor capability to organise , their logistic failure, lack of food and
Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?
Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain? Oliver Cromwell was born in 1599 and he died in 1658. He was an army general during the civil wars in 1642-1648 and was well respected. He ordered his men (the roundheads) into battle after organising and planning his movements. Oliver Cromwell was a M.P. before the civil war and the public supported him during the war against the king. It was Oliver who signed Charles the first's death warrant, so was Oliver a hero or a villain? Cromwell believed that King Charles was abusing the public's right and he thought he could try to change the king's ways. For example, King Charles believed that England should be a catholic country (like France) event though England was mostly consisted of Protestants and Puritans. Parliament disagreed with the king, but the king ignored Parliament and the public. Cromwell was outraged and gave many speeches against the king, which was in the public's favour. The people liked Cromwell's style and his leadership qualities, so they supported him as he was like a window to them for what was just and right. Cromwell wanted the king to treat the public with some respect and in this light he was the public choice. There is evidence to show that Cromwell was a good leader and organiser. He had stamina, and fought the enemy of trained solders (the royalists) with his army of untrained, but determined
