Who was to blame for the war: Charles I or Parliament.
1/2/2001 Prasshy.S Who was to blame for the war: Charles I or Parliament This essay consists of the causes of the Civil War and who was to blame for the war. In August 22nd, 1642 King Charles I declared war against his enemies in parliament. Many people were surprised, as they did not realize feelings were so bad and people had no idea that war was on its way. To identify that war could have been caused by either Charles or Parliament, we must look at the (causes) events that were before the declaration of war. Both Parliament and Charles would trigger these. However, who was responsible for the death of so many who fought for each side, which caused the Civil War? Charles I made many mistakes that caused the civil war or triggered the war. Charles' reign did not start well as like his father, James I, he believed in the Divine Right of Kings. This, a political cause was not supported by parliament as most MP's wanted more influence in the ruling of the country. Charles also didn't help matter when in 1625 he married a French Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria. One problem with the marriage was that she was Catholic and Catholicism was not approved in England, as England was a protestant country. Another cause of concern was that the French had been enemies with England for centuries. The last cause for concern was not the country and religion that the princess
The most important reason for Wolseys fall from power was his failure to obtain a divorce for Henry VIII- How far do you agree with this statement?
'The most important reason for Wolsey's fall from power was his failure to obtain a divorce for Henry VIII'- How far do you agree with this statement? Due to Wolsey's constant victories, he was able to sustain power for 15 years, outlasting the King's other advisers. Yet unlike his role as 'alter rex' his fall was swift and dramatic, which came after his failure of obtaining Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon. In regards to this, it seems clear that this is the reason why Wolsey fell from power, yet there are possible contributing factors that one must take into consideration. One reason is that Wolsey was undoubtedly unpopular in court throughout his time. Within his time at court he acquired many enemies such as the King's minions because of his less than wealthy upbringing. This may have impact the king due to the closeness of him and the minions- who were influencing the King to oppose Wolsey. This is evident in his rivalry against the Duke of Norfolk and Suffolk who were the figureheads in the Tudor court. The Duke of Norfolk was also related to Anne Boleyn, therefore Henry was influenced by the Boleyn faction to rid of Wolsey thus providing reason for his downfall. Wolsey himself could easily influence Henry to get rid of his enemies in addition to acquiring more power, therefore the fact that the King was easily influenced also suggests a reason as to why
Assess how far the success of Gladstones first ministry was due to Gladstonian Liberalism.
Assess how far the success of Gladstone's first ministry was due to Gladstonian Liberalism. Gladstone's first ministry is widely proclaimed as his most successful ministry had many popular political titans within it, so this invariably led to success of this ministry but Gladstone was obviously at the heart of this success and arguably without Gladstone many of the successful reforms of the ministry would not have got through and almost certainly not without his unequivocal backing. So he obviously played a large part in the process and therefore his ideologies would have been pushed forward especially by the people, who were wildly supportive of almost any policy he brought out. Therefore Gladstonian Liberalism must have been one of the central factors in the success of Gladstone's first administration. Gladstone was successful in his government because all his reforms were cautious; this meant he did not quickly alienate any one particular group beyond repair, with the possible exception of the Adullamites, with his defeated electoral reform bill. This possibly highlights why the reform bill failed and why Gladstone's first ministry fell down in the end because it wasn't cautious enough in its final reform bill. This shows how fundamental one of Gladstonian Liberalism's integral characteristics was in the success of the Liberal government. Gladstone's actual presence
Do you agree with the view that in 1515-25 Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey?
Do you agree with the view that in 1515-25 Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey? From 1515 -1525 was the beginning of Wolsey's power to the height of influence. On one hand Henry did completely surrendered his power in government to Wolsey. For example when Wolsey was organising the expedition to France in 1513, although he had held none of the major offices of state he had been able to mobilise the whole machinery of government to carry out his commands. This had been possible not because Wolsey was some sort of power hungry nobody but because the king had given Wolsey the power in the organisation of the expedition to France. 'It must have seemed that a self indulgent king had wholly surrendered the care of state into the Cardinal's hands'1. Wolsey constantly manipulated Henry so Wolsey could pass laws and policy for instance he attempted to bring greater justice to the English legal system. He controlled both of the country's legal systems and thus could always act within the law as he interpreted it, transferring cases from one court system to another as best suited his purposes, in complete defiance of past practises and existing conventions. This shows that Henry had given power to Wolsey throughout the years, even when he was next to no importance. A reason for Wolsey's power was that although he was rarely in the same place as the
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement?
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement? Wolsey was a man of much promise. Born a butchers son in Ipswich in either 1472 or 1473, he had an undisputedly low say in the running of the country. He rose through the ranks of the English church, and excelled himself until the King, Henry VIII, appointed him Lord Chancellor in 1515. When in this positioned, he promised great amounts of modification to the Church, the people and the foreign policy. Not all of this was achieved though, and some would say that Wolsey achieved little. He did not. Wolsey made many promises, because he tried to impress people, and most importantly, Henry. He made so many promises because he wanted to keep his position in power, and the way to keep this was to promise people he would do things for them, even though he may have eventually not got round to doing them. Maybe Wolsey was greedy? Maybe he wanted to be King, but Henry just stood in his way? We do not know precisely why Wolsey promised so much; we can only assume that it was to keep his power. Wolsey had a programme for reformation of the government. He disliked anybody that came close to the King and threatened his position, and tried to get rid of them in a clever way, for example, the minions. Wolsey, when in his privy chamber, would have the Great
Why was Richard Arkwright so important to the Industrial Revolution
Why was Richard Arkwright so important to the Industrial Revolution? Introduction Richard Arkwright was the founder of the factory. He was the first person to invent a machine that used a different form of power other than man. People called him the Father of the Industrial Revolution. Richard was a barber in Lancashire when he saw an opening in the industry for a new invention. Weaving had been speeded up by 'flying shuttles' and the thread wasn't being produced fast enough to keep up with the looms, so he used his invention, the water frame, to fill the gap and get him lots of money. The Water Frame Richard Arkwright was a business man and he made an invention called the water frame. He used it to make the thread for the looms. At first it was powered by horses but this wasn't successful because the horses needed rest and feeding. So he needed a new form of power. Also this machine couldn't fit in the houses because it was so big. His machine was efficient and didn't need a skilled worker to operate it. Richard picked up ideas from different inventors of the time and quickly put a patent on his invention so nobody copied him. His patent was taken away because he was said to have borrowed all his ideas. But he didn't take all of their ideas. He had a few of his own on the machine. Eventually he found water power for his machine and started building factories.
How far do the sources suggest that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge by the Light Brigade at Balaclava?
[history homework] How far do the sources suggest that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge by the Light Brigade at Balaclava? Having analysed all three sources it can be said that sources disagree to a considerable extent with the statement that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge of the Light Brigade. Source 1 strongly disagrees and challenges the statement, as it states that the “blame was hastily attached” to Nolan initially suggesting that he had been used as a scapegoat for the blame as he had died during the charge, allowing the commanding officers to plant the blame on him. However it states that these claims of Nolan being responsible were “alleged” and he had “been subsequently rescued from so grave an accusation”. The source goes on to make its own claims that his “published theories on tactics” were of a totally different nature to the ones that were used in the charge and therefore it could not have been his fault as “he could never have suggested it, even under an access of enthusiasm”. The source is an extract from Captain Nolan’s obituary in the Illustrated London News published on the 25th of November, therefore the source can be valued as it was published in a reputable Newspaper and was written around the time, but time had passed giving them an opportunity to figure out the true story and also gives
The victory of Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election was solely due to the mistakes of the IPP after 1914. discuss
The victory of Sinn Fein in the 1918 General Election was solely due to the mistakes of the IPP after 1914. How far would you agree with this statement? Pre 1916, Sinn Fein rather than a fully established political party was known more as an umbrella term to label the various types of extreme nationalists in Ireland. Therefore, their rise to prominence in the 1916-18 period marked, most notably, by their success in the December 1918 General Election was extremely quick considering their political anonymity pre 1916. Undoubtedly, the Irish electorates’ growing disillusionment and frustration of the IPP was a very considerable factor when looking at the Election result. However, there are other reasons for the electoral shift between the two parties including the actions of the Liberal Government and more simply, the support for the core principles and policy of Sinn Fein themselves. Therefore, I agree with the above statement but only to an extent. A major reason for the shift of support from the IPP to Sinn Fein in the 1918 General Election was due to the IPP and the electorate’s dissatisfaction with them as a nationalist party. Without doubt, the IPP were weakened by the postponement of Home Rule following the outbreak of World War one in 1914. One of the IPP’s core principles was the idea of achieving Home Rule for Ireland, with this postponed the IPP may have
In what ways and to what extent does the concept of Spain's Golden Age apply more specifically to the reign of Philip II than to the whole period 1474 - 1598?
In what ways and to what extent does the concept of Spain's Golden Age apply more specifically to the reign of Philip II than to the whole period 1474 - 1598? Justify your answer by reference to the similarities and differences you detect between the periods before and after the accession of Philip in 1556 The concept of a Golden Age is a highly contested issue among modern and contempory historians. There is debate over the dates of such an age, or even its existence at all. Working on the assumption that a golden age occurred in some form, to deduce whether it was more specifically under Philip's reign, we must look at the condition of Spain in key areas before and after Philip's accession in 1556. If differences arise a judgement must be made on whether they were an improvement for Spain, or signify a decline. The keys issues include religion, the military, territory, the economy, law and order and the organisation of government. The Golden Age over all should be the period where most of these concerns have reached their peak. The point of entry into the Golden Age in terms of the army is complex, and depends on the definition, i.e. whether it is the number of troops or their individual skills, loyalty and motivation which determines it. In the period 1525 - 1536, the army was highly thought of and comprised of members of the aristocracy fighting for social pride and
