Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?
Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"? "The mid-Tudor crisis" is a term often used by historians to describe the reigns of Edward VI (1547-1553) and Mary I (1553-1558). This period can be seen as a crisis, due to the fact that there were so many problems, financial, social, religious and constitutional, all of which led to rebellions, and placed the country in a very unstable position. It is clear that many of the origins of this 'crisis' have their roots in the reign of Henry VIII, especially in his final years, and therefore to an extent his policies were responsible for the 'mid-Tudor crisis'. He left a very difficult legacy to his successors, but it must be remembered that Somerset exacerbated the problems already in existence and Northumberland and Mary then had the difficult task of resolving them. Henry VIII on his own can not be held entirely responsible for the crisis, he was only one contributing factor. There were many underlying social and economic problems which his policies did not cause. Henry's policies relating to the constitutional difficulties can not be held to blame for the crisis. Indeed, during his reign, Cromwell's reforms had actually made the Tudor state more powerful, but "this advantage was weakened by a minority". Before he died in 1547, Henry had attempted to prevent a power struggle by setting up a
How successful was Prohibition?
How successful was prohibition ? (30 marks) Prohibition, considering the goals it set out to achieve , was largely unsuccessful. However initially it did manage to decrease alcohol consumption , created new jobs needed to enforce prohibition and found in 1934 Alcoholics Anonymous a ,voluntary effort program that succeeded in helping alcoholics. On January 16th, 1920, prohibition was introduced nationally by the 18th amendment which banned the sale, transportation and manufacture of intoxicating liquor with the general purpose of reducing alcohol consumption. It was considered, by mainly protestant groups, that alcohol was the source of social problems, thus by banning it their goals was to reduce crime, corruption, reduce tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses , and improve health and hygiene in America. By the end of the 1920s, with booming illegal trade in alcohol, it was evident that the ''noble experiment'' had largely failed to achieve it goals. Making alcohol illegal naturally lead to a deficiency in supply and a rise in its price which made it available only to a limited section of society and caused an initial decrease in consumption. However the sudden shift meant that demand still existed -old stock Americans and newly arrived immigrants refused to abandon drinking. As alcohol became a luxury item increasing its appeal and demand to
Assess the successes and failures of Mussolini's domestic policy.
Assess the successes and failures of Mussolini's domestic policy. Mussolini's primary aim in 1919 when he came into power was to fascitise the Italian nation as a whole, young and old; he wanted his nation to be utterly committed and disciplined towards the new fascist state rather than being passive and going along with everyone else. To achieve this goal, Mussolini set about trying to influence and ultimately change make domestic establishments more 'fascist', that is, to follow the principles of a very right-wing, nationalist totalitarian state in which the 'Duce is always right' and in which the principles of 'Believe, Obey, Fight' are considered paramount. Mussolini attempted to alter Church-state relations, to create the perfect fascist woman, to fascitise the educational system and the youths of Italy, to change Italy's economic and political structure, and to create a nation that would be respected by other nations, by using his strategies of the 'battle for land, grain and births' and by proving the strength of the nation through sporting achievements. However, Mussolini's policies failed to unite the country and fascitise the nation as a whole; his economic polices were disastrous, Italy was fairly weak politically, and women and teenagers failed to be heavily affected by a fascist state; Mussolini did handle the Church-State relations well however but in the
Were the 1960s and 1970s a turning point for the equality of Native Americans?
Were the 1960's and 1970's a turning point for the equality of Native Americans? The equality for Native Americans was slowly declining, with the white settlers taking over and the natives were just a hindrance and the whites began devising different ways they could be removed from their homes, land, tribes and even from society as a whole. However the 1970's were a major turning point, due to the change to become less militant in their approaches that they applied to their fight for their rights, including sit-in's, negotiation, gaining publicity and being inspired by the ever growing black power movement. This was as a new generation of Native Americans grew, and especially towards the 1940's (post war) they began to stand up and fight for their rights, religion and culture, and the 1960's and 1970's showed a predominate era for their movement in their equality. The 1960's and 1970's showed a massive growth in the Native American movement and a gain in their rights. In 1968 the natives has a 'fish-in' (which was a mock of a sit-in), in Washington supreme state court. They gave the government a list of 20 demands, including: allowing Native American leaders to address in congress and to rebuild Indian relations and protect religious freedom and cultural integrity, even though this wasn't successful. This brought the beginning of the term 'Red Power' made by the younger
How far do you agree that Lenins leadership was the main reason why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power?
How far do you agree that Lenin's leadership was the main reason why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power? The Bolsheviks were able to successfully seize power for many reasons. Firstly the weakness of the provisional government made it easy to take power, secondly Trotsky's careful planning made sure the take-over was executed with great efficiency and finally the return of Lenin did help to build support and encourage the Bolsheviks to seize power. The First main reason the Bolsheviks were able to seize power was the failure the Provisional Government brought on itself. It had failed miserably in solving Russia's problems. The government was unsuccessful in combating the problem of having two governments it simply undermined its own power by doing nothing to stop the Soviets, it continued to fight a war the country could not afford and that was not supported by its people and a war in which in the end Russia did badly in, plus there was a massive lack of control over the countryside and so peasants seized control of land again proving the lack of authority the provisional government held. Ultimately all of these problems and the lack of authority was a huge factor in the downfall of the Provisional Government, you could argue that the government would have been overthrown without Lenin's leadership of the Bolsheviks as it was already widely unpopular and failing
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
Russell Baker's Growing Up
Russell Baker's Growing Up Autobiographical works tell a story of their authors by compiling antic dotes and accolades. Most autobiographies are that of famous authors or other celebrities and provide a synopsis of life according to them. Russell Baker's autobiography, Growing Up, achieves all these things as well, but, it does more than just tell of his life. As American citizens, history is a big part of our identity not only as Americans, but as individuals. Russell Baker lived through a depression, a world war, Utopia, a sexual revolution, and a lost cause conflict, among other things. If one were to study either the Great Depression or the Second World War, Russell Baker's autobiography would prove to be a valuable resource. Baker's autobiography provides a screen through which readers can view historical events in American history through one boy's eyes. As a newspaper columnist, Russell Baker has the ability to recall newsworthy events and tell of them in a professional, telling fashion. Early on in the book, Russell discusses his career as a magazine salesman and a newspaper delivery boy. It is hard to believe that Baker does not believe in some way these careers he had as a young boy did not shape his character. These two careers also provided him with a chance to read about events before anyone else did and thus recall these moments in time with a more focused
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,
