Elizabeth I: There is much debate amongst historians concerning the religious priorities of Elizabeth in formulating the momentous Church Settlement of 1559
Elizabeth I: The Religious Settlement of 1559 There is much debate amongst historians concerning the religious priorities of Elizabeth in formulating the momentous Church Settlement of 1559, which was to shape the Church of England for years to come. Many factors can lay claim to shaping the Settlement, but in order to judge which one influenced it most strongly; one must look at the Settlement itself, which contains a strong base of Protestantism but with conservative concessions. Taking into account Elizabeth's own personal beliefs, which were conveniently politically shrewd, Elizabeth seemed to have adopted the pragmatic policy of trying to please everyone and to keep internal peace, with a Settlement containing enough Catholic superficiality to keep her conservative subjects, if not bishops, contented. The traditional view of the Settlement, taken by historians such as J.E Neale, is that it was influenced by Protestant pressure applied by Puritans returning from abroad and that Elizabeth herself favoured the conservative methods. This view relied mainly on evidence about the 'Puritan Choir', a group of committed Puritan MPs led by Sir Francis Knollys and Sir Anthony Cooke, making up a quarter of the 404 members of Parliament. After the Protestant burnings of the reign of 'bloody Mary', many radical Protestants returned to England from their refuges of Geneva and
Conservative scandals were the most important reason for why they lost in the 1964 election. Do you agree?
Conservative scandals were the most important reason for why they lost in the 1964 election. Do you agree? For the Conservatives, the loss of the 1964 election was due to a number of factors, including the scandals that affected their party's image during this time. Other factors include the Profumo affair, another more significant scandal, the leadership troubles that the Conservatives faced during this time, and a general lack of spirit from the party after a tiring 13 years in government. As well as this, Labour's growing strength played a part in their winning of the election. Scandals played a major part of 1963 for the Conservatives, with three different occurrences happening during this time. These scandals included the Vassall affair, which made the government look bad as they tried to protect a Soviet spy and ultimately protect themselves from the trouble of not catching him sooner, but it backfired and the truth was revealed to the public. This scandal would reflect badly on the MPs involved as it shows them as untrustworthy, and also links them to the Soviets and could be perceived as them trying to protect them. Another Soviet spy case, the Kim Philby scandal, showed the government to be incompetent as they hadn't caught a spy for decades, reflecting badly on them as it once again highlighted the disorganisation of the government. The third case, the Argyll
How successful was Wolsey in his Domestic Administration 1515-29?
How successful was Wolsey in his Domestic Administration 1515-29? Wolsey's rise to power was for many reasons: his low social background drove him to succeed; his force of personality; his natural intelligence - the boy bachelor; his oratory skills and his understanding of the King. Wolsey was blessed with these gifts and with the trust of the King Wolsey had the potential to be great. Wolsey was in the position to do this, so why is his success in domestic administration such a debated matter? I feel his success depends on how and what we are judging his achievements on. There was much pressure for reform within the church during Wolsey's time in power. Bishops and Archbishops were criticised of nepotism, meaning uneducated and undeserving men were throughout the clergy. Priests were immoral, breaking their oath to celibacy and in some cases with their own daughter. The papacy was in turmoil and it was disrespected. Anticlericalism was becoming prevalent and Christian humanists were pushing for reform. They were trying to educate, translating the bible into different languages so people could read it and they were challenging Catholic ideas, like the pope's behaviour and the role of the priest. With this pressure for reform Wolsey could have become a great figure in the Church and create successful reformer, but he did not take this opportunity even though historians such
How far were Maos agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962?
How far were Mao's agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962? Mao's agricultural policies were extreme, unpopular and carelessly thought through which made them largely responsible for the scale of the Great Famine. These policies included bad agronomical theories of Lysenkoism and 'Sparrowcide', as well as Collectivisation and the agricultural policies from the Great Leap Forward. Chinese researchers were told that the Soviets 'had discovered and invented everything,' which meant that they looked up to the USSR believing that their actions and ideas i.e. Lysenkoism, a Soviet theory, would also benefit China. There were also other contributions which can be argued to have caused the huge scale of the famine such as the effects of the Anti-rightist campaigns in 1957, Party corruption, USSR grain repayments along with terrible weather conditions and the situation in Tibet. Collectivisation from 1953-57, was the first agricultural policy taken on by Mao which was unsupported by the peasants in the countryside who were the majority of the population. The whole aim for Collectivisation was to massively increase grain production at a relatively quick pace, but the difficulties of implementation only led to a 3.8% increase overall of crop production, and only a tiny 1% in the last year in 1957. These disappointing figures represent how
Why did the liberal government introduce social reforms 1906-1914?
Why did the liberal government introduce social reforms 1906-1914? There are multiple reasons why the Liberal government introduced acts of social reform between 1906 and 1914. The obvious reason is that there was a great need for reform(change) but there are also many other factors that played a part in the decision for a reform. This change was really required to help and improve Britain. The reason for this need for change was the poor conditions that all parts of Britain had been left in after the conservatives had been in power. It is often said that the Liberals had to introduce in social reforms due to pressure from the Labour party. This new party was formed in 1903 and had very little major union connections even though there policies were committed to reform Britain. This idea is very realistic as three reforms were influenced by the Labour party. Both parties main aim was to eliminate the poor and introduced benefits for the unemployed, elderly and ill. By introducing just some social reform the Liberals believed it would stave off threats from the Labour party and hopefully lessen the demand for more. There were two key event that brought the Liberals into reality and made them realize what poor health Britain's population was facing and the actual need for reform. The first reason was that of the Boer War. There was many difficulties experienced in trying
The Liberal Reforms (1906-1914)
The Liberal Reforms (1906-1914) Between 1906 and 1914, the lives of many British people were improved due to the introduction of a series of welfare reforms by the Liberal Government. In 1906, the Liberals won the general election based on the values of "old" Liberalism, which favoured Laissez-Faire rather than government intervention. However, with the resignation of Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and the introduction of David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill to the cabinet, these values were replaced by the values of "new" Liberalism. Both Churchill and Lloyd George were New Liberalists who believed that the state should look after the Welfare of those who could not help themselves. The government identified five main groups of people who were in need of help (the young, old, sick, unemployed and employed) and attempted to aid these groups of people by introducing several reforms. After it was made compulsory for children to attend school until the age of ten, it became obvious that many children were going to school hungry, dirty and/or suffering from ill health and hence were unable to focus on their work. This meant that children were not fully benefiting from the education system. Margaret Macmillan was an educationalist who firmly believed in the adage, "Feed the stomach, then the mind", and she pushed forward educational reforms. Also, the government had recognised
Richard Arkwright.
Richard Arkwright Hero or villain. This essay will try to give an incite into Richard Arkwright. It will show the good things about him being an employer and the bad. I will begin by stating all of the topics I will discuss: The wages, the distribution of management; the business the factories bought to local areas, the health of the children in the mills and the invention of the spinning frame. The wages that Richard Arkwright paid to his employees was appalling, even by olden day standards but the workers would not have to pay for meals as this was included with the job. Every person working in a factory or mill at that time would have received very low pay it was not just in Richard Arkwright's mills or factories. Richard Arkwright was the 13th child in a poor family (from Preston) he would therefore have known what it was like to work for a living. Richard Arkwright spread out managing his mills and factories which could be described as trying to spread work so that he did less or if there was an accident in one of the mills Richard Arkwright would not be held responsible. Richard Arkwright became very rich so his idea was clearly a good one because if there were a claim against the factory the manager would be responsible for sorting it out. You could also say that he did this so his factories would be more productive and efficient, and he would then gain more
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
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe. The situation in Europe after the Second World War was truly desperate; many states were in ruins due to the devastation that caused unimaginable poverty and distress. At the surface, the US's plans to help Europe through the Marshall Plan are altruistic; however, looking deeper, the benefits that the US receives are high and rewarding. So much so, that it could be construed that the US had ulterior motives within their altruistic attempt on rebuilding the European Economy and thus benefiting themselves. During the interwar period, the US had based its foreign affairs on a "policy of glorious isolationism" - a policy that would have separated the US from the affairs of the world that did not concern them. At the end of the Second World War, the US's view had changed considerably in that they now wanted to help the European Community through 'the offer of aid through Marshall's new programme...'1 it was 'made available to all European countries without distinction,'2 making it seem that the US were being all inclusive within their scheme to help. At the surface, this would have been altruistic in that Marshall was helping Europe because he saw the devastation left behind from the Second
