"To what extent can the accession of Henry VII be attributed to the instability of Richard III 's short reign?"
Abby Clayton Miss Levers yr 12 12-4 "To what extent can the accession of Henry VII be attributed to the instability of Richard III 's short reign?" Word count: 1,815 By 1485, Britain had experienced a long period of monarchy usurptions, called the War of the Roses. This disastrous period had been raging in England for many years between two main families, well known in history, the Yorks and Lancastrians. More than 500 years ago, King Edward IV died, leaving his sons, Richard and Edward, aged 10 and 12 respectively. This ongoing feud allowed the exchanging of the throne through usurption, or murder. The claiming of the throne was, as some say, easy, and it seems that anyone with a legible claim, however longwinded, could become king. The end of this ongoing feud came when 'Henry VII later took for his bride Elizabeth of York, thereby uniting the houses'1 This essays intension is to explain how and also why Henry VII got the English throne in 1485. It will include details of the circumstances in which he claimed his place, and if, in other circumstances, would he have become the famous king and a great achiever who 'survived a series of rebellions, to have restored the monarchy to stability and to have left government strong and solvent after disorder in the realm.'2 But the main question that arises in this essay is 'would Henry have become king if he did not make his
'The support of George III was the most important reason why William Pitt the Younger was able to stay in power from 1783-1801' - How far do you agree?
'The support of George III was the most important reason why William Pitt the Younger was able to stay in power from 1783-1801.' How far do you agree? William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister of England between 1783 and 1801. During this period he governed efficiently, both improving national policies, and successfully protecting Britain from the revolutionary threat from France. The support of the King, George III, was an important factor in Pitt retaining power for such a substantial length of time, it was not however the only reason. It cannot be denied that the strategy of governing exploited by Pitt during his term of office, including his policies commonly known as the 'National Revival', the significant lack of opposition present at this time in British politics as well as his own personal abilities, in times of hardship as well as of ease, all contributed to his success and the longevity of his rule. The support of the King is unquestionably a key factor in Pitt's initial entrance into the position of prime minister: he was personally chosen as the King's candidate at the end of 1783. It was important for a prime minister to have the backing of the king, because many MPs supported the king's choice. For Pitt this was particularly significant as to begin with he did not have a mass following in the House of Commons, thus his smooth transition into office was made
Why was Henry Tudor able to overthrow Richard III?
Why was Henry Tudor able to overthrow Richard III? There were many different factors that aided Henry in his overthrow of Richard. Commynes, their contemporary said he was a "virtuous Prince", implying it was his personal qualities that aided his cause. Many historians say that it was Richard III's qualities that made him vulnerable, John Rous likening him to a scorpion with a "smooth front" yet a "stinging tail". Although Ross implied that the events at Bosworth and the treachery of his nobles were the downfall of Richard, saying, "never again were the attitudes of three or four over-mighty subjects able to exercise so decisive an influence on the survival or death of an English Monarch". Although, a thought that cannot be ignored is that the outcome of Bosworth may have just been an unlucky and remarkable occurrence because not since 1066 had the English throne been won by an adventurer with such obscure claims as Henry Tudor. Even the events of 1688 when William of Orange overthrew James II have insufficient parallel with what happened at Bosworth. Richard III is reputable by many for being the most hated king in history for many reasons. The nature of his usurpation almost condemned him from the beginning, Richard made no attempt to quash the rumour that he had murdered his nephews; Richard would not even produce the boys! Thus creating a great deal of mistrust and
Why was the passage of the 1832 Reform Act so contested when it's importance was so small?
Why was the passage of the 1832 Reform Act so contested when it's importance was so small? During the early part of the 19th Century reform was placed low on the political agenda. This was perhaps due to the Napoleonic Wars with France which showed people the damaging effects war could have on the country. However, in 1819 the arguments concerning the reformation of parliament came back into the public's conscious. The growing role of the media acted as a new method of informing the public of their rights and the need for action. People were also being made aware through public meetings held by radical MP's that favoured reform. It is therefore not hard to see why in 1832 the Great Reform Act was passed. 'Old Corruption' was the name given to the voting system prior to the reform because bribery and corruption were the principle means through which candidates secured votes. The unreformed system was not at all systematic or fair. There was a lack of uniformity in the organisation of parliamentary constituencies and elections. In addition, the landed elite held nearly all political power and influence. The country was run by the privileged few and not the general public. Frank O'Gorman estimates that in 1831 400,000 men had the right to vote in a population of 13.9 million, that results in just 2.9% of the population as a whole and 12.7% of the male population. Another fault
To what extent was the burnings of Protestants the real cause of the failure of Mary's religious policy?
To what extent was the burnings of Protestants the real cause of the failure of Mary's religious policy? After Mary had taken the throne from Lady Jane Grey in 1553, she had, in her view, the task of returning the church to the state it had been in at the start of 1534. By the end of the year of her accession, Mary had re-implemented the heresy laws and by her death in November 1558, a minimum of 287 Protestants had died in the flames at Smithfield and elsewhere across the country. At the end of Mary's reign Protestantism was far from being suppressed, and upon the accession of Elizabeth, England once again swung to Protestantism. England would never be officially Catholic again. Although it can be argued that Catholicism was not a total failure under Mary, by her standards she had certainly not achieved what she had set out to do. She had wanted to re-establish a good relationship with the Papacy, and have a complete return to Catholicism proper. She had wanted to restore all Church lands, bring back the monasteries, and most importantly Catholic doctrine. Mary's religious policy was simple from the outset; to bring the return of Roman Catholicism to the country. This was no secret, as she had given up her title as Princess for her religion. She had also openly defied her brother, Edward VI, when he decreed that it was illegal to perform, and take part in the mass. Mary
Why did sugar become the dominant crop in the Caribbean in the late seventeenth century?
Why did sugar become the dominant crop in the Caribbean in the late seventeenth century? In order to ascertain why sugar became the dominant crop in the Caribbean in the late seventeenth century, it will be necessary to consider the situation in the early 1600s. What were the crops which were cultivated by early settlers and why did they make the change? Economic factors must be examined, alongside the effects of conflict and political instability, and the growing conditions on the islands, which would favour some crops over others. The differing requirements of manpower, according to what commodity was produced, would also affect the choice of crop. Many of the things which might grow well in the Caribbean would have a very limited export potential. Whilst much can be gleaned from contemporary records and statements written at the height of the sugar 'boom', it should be borne in mind that there was much propaganda involved, and many of the statistics cannot be relied on. To give an example, some traders who were exporting to Britain, described white sugar as muscovado, because the duty on white sugar was so much higher.1 Many scholars have held the view that sugar was the crop of choice in the Caribbean, because other products had proved unprofitable. However, as Robert Carlyle Batie shows in his article 'Why Sugar'2 there is evidence that planters had done very well from
Why did the House of Lords reject the 1909 Budget
Why Did The House of Lords Reject The 1909 Budget? In his 1909-10 budget, Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer needed to find £15 million of extra revenue to provide for the new social services and for the construction of naval warships. He set out to tax the rich and especially those living on unearned income. His budget proposed: * Increased incomes tax from one shilling to one shilling and two pence in the pound on incomes over £3,000 a year. * A new super tax on incomes over £5,000 a year * Increased death duties on estates of over £5,000 a year * New land taxes * Indirect taxes on luxury goods such as motor cars, petrol, beer and tobacco. Lloyd George needed to increase revenue and he favoured the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, but probably had other reasons for launching his provocative budget too. He wanted to show working-voters that they need not vote for the new Labour Party in order to get radical measure, and more importantly, he wanted to punish the conservatives for their opposition of the Lords. Prior to 1905 the Conservative domination of the House of Lords caused no problems, however once the Liberals had a majority in the Commons, the Lords could use their power to wreck their opponents legislation. After the Liberal Landslide of 1906, the Conservatives were powerless in the commons, with less than a quarter of the seats, but the
To what extent is it appropriate to describe Charles' rule without Parliament, 1629-40, as the "eleven years tyranny?"
To what extent is it appropriate to describe Charles' rule without Parliament, 1629-40, as the "eleven years tyranny?" Tyranny n 1 a Rule or government that is cruel or oppressive. b a state under such rule. 2 any form of cruel or oppressive treatment. Tyrant n 1 cruel or oppressive ruler. 2 any person who exerts cruel or oppressive power or control. 3 a ruler who takes absolute power without any legal right. It would appear to me at this time that according to these dictionary definitions Charles Stuart was a tyrant, and his 11 years of rule without Parliament were tyrannical. Now I'll look at the evidence and see if I can find a definite answer... CHARLES: BACKGROUND AND BELIEFS Charles didn't expect to ascend the throne. He thought that his elder brother would be king, but Prince Henry died young and Charles was unexpectedly thrown into the limelight. He is an extraordinarily complex figure. He was a courageous man (he showed great courage in the course of the Civil War) and he's capable of kindness, honour, and consideration. Although he can never be trusted, (he breaks his word regularly,) there's also this insecurity in Charles, who needs to be obeyed. His sense of his own identity and his sense of his kingly office are very closely related to each other. If he's not king, if he's not obeyed, who is he? What is has he left? Charles ruled by divine right. He was
During his 24-year reign, King Henry VII faced three major uprisings - Each provided a threat to the king, but how much of a threat?
How dangerous were the threats to Henry VII's government? (With reference to Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck and the Cornish Rebellion) During his 24-year reign, King Henry VII faced three major uprisings. Each provided a threat to the king, but how much of a threat? The first threat to Henry came in 1487, from a ten-year-old boy, called Lambert Simnel. Simnel originally posed as the younger of Edward IV's sons, Richard, but soon his identity was changed to that of the young Earl of Warwick, who had recently died in the tower, according to rumour. An Oxfordshire priest called Richard Symonds, trained Lambert Simnel in 'the royal ways'. Henry heard of the claims that Simnel was Warwick and in an attempt to quash the rebellion before it happened, Henry took the real Warwick (who was not dead) from the Tower and paraded him through the streets of London. However, in May Symonds took Simnel to Ireland and inn Dublin, Simnel was crowned Edward VI. Support for Simnel's cause mainly came from foreign supporters as opposed to English ones. These supporters included the Earl of Kildare, the archbishop of Dublin, Margaret of Burgundy (his 'aunt'). It was Maximilian of Burgundy who provided funding for the campaign. His few English supporters included John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, Francis Lovell, a lord, and the noble northern families of the Broughtons and the Harringtons. These
Did Philip II successfully honour his obligations to the Church as 'The Most Catholic King'?
Did Philip successfully honour his obligations to the Church as 'The Most Catholic King'? Since Philip's reign in the 16th Century, he has acquired many titles, complementing and insulting alike. As Woodward states, these have included 'El Prudente', 'The Spider King' and many others, but the one that has caused the most debate was a title more recently bestowed upon him - 'The Most Catholic King'. Historians have argued this case giving support from Philip's successes with the Spanish Inquisition, Moriscos Revolt and the Reform of the Catholic Church to name a few. The evidence against the monumental title is equally strong if we look back to Philip's relationships with the Papacy, his domestic policies as well as foreign policies. So how accurate is the claim that Philip was 'The Most Catholic King'? As it seems to me, Philip's greatest religious successes were those involved with the reformation, most notably Philip's key involvement with the Council of Trent. The greatest reformation the Catholic Church had gone under was that of the one during Ferdinand and Isabella's reigns in the later half of the 15th century. Despite this, it was still in need of drastic change by the time Philip came to the throne. Philip had instigated the Council of Trent, consisting of Spain's finest theologians, and by it's conclusion in 1563, a series of decrees dealing with Catholic reform,
