'England Was Never Well Governed in the Reign of Edward Vi' How Far Do You Agree with This?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By samapowell98
Words 1879
Pages 8
‘England was never well governed in the reign of Edward 6th’
How far do you agree with this?

Edward VI inherited the throne in 1547 at the infant age of 9. Because of his youth, he had two advisors. The first was his uncle, the Duke of Somerset, who became Lord Protector, and for the first two and a half years of Edward’s reign, Somerset advised and guided the young king. Somerset was replaced by the Duke of Northumberland. Edward was a mere figurehead, the Lord Protector controlled the majority of his government but how well was England governed during the reign of Edward VI for the mere 6 six years he was in power?

During the years of 1547-1553 England experienced a handful of serious rebellions during the six-year reign of Edward. Here were three major rebellions the Western Rebellion 1549, Kett's rebellion 1549 and Wyatt's rebellion, not to mention other uprisings. Most of these rebellions were in the South of England near to the capital, the heart of Tudor power, making them even more worrying to the monarchy. In addition the impact of the first two was magnified by their occurrence at a time of war with Scotland and France. Furthermore these rebellions changed Somerset's foreign policy as he withdrew troops from Scotland needed to suppress uprising, scaled down favored policy of garrisoning Scotland and all these gave the advantage to French who in order took Boulogne in summer 1549.

Rebellions are not started for small matters; people only rebel if they fear for the welfare of themselves and their family, for they’re to be three serious rebellions in the space of 6 years is a clear sign that the government aren’t meeting the peoples basic human needs however there is another way to look at this. Even though the rebellions were started due to the reaction of the people to a government policy, e.g. the Western rebellion in 1549 (also known as the…...

Similar Documents

How Far Was Pre Conquest England a Well Governed and Prosperous Nation

...How far was pre conquest England a prosperous and well governed kingdom I believe that pre-conquest England was a rather well governed and somewhat prosperous kingdom. The countries system of writs; the division of land and the hierarchy as well as the coinage, trade, towns and frequent invasions all suggest that pre-conquest England was prosperous and well-governed. However, the possible threat to the king of the Earls and the countries comparatively undeveloped economy all suggest as less prosperous, more unstable England. My opinion is that they were given a good image due to how well they dealt with the invasion of the Scandinavians and their introduction of Danegeld it showed how wealthy and organised the kingdom was and how they could deal with all that tax. The land was divided into several parts. Primarily, the realm was divided into four earldoms (Mercia, Wessex, East Anglia and Northumbria) each of which was controlled by an Earl. These Earls were incredibly powerful. Each earldom was further divided into shires (like modern-day counties) hundreds and hides. Each level of this hierarchy had its own leader / representative, such as the sheriffs managing each shire under the Earls. This system demonstrates that there was a very clear hierarchy in pre-conquest England; which would have made the country far easier to manage and well governed because each division of land would have a local lord to manage it. I believe that it shows that Britain had a well devised...

Words: 1033 - Pages: 5

How Far Do You Agree That Wyatt’s Rebellion Was a Serious Threat to Mary’s Authority?

...How far do you agree that Wyatt’s rebellion was a serious threat to Mary’s authority? Although Wyatt’s rebellion was, when compared to the riots and rebellions that visited the Tudor Dynasty, rather small in size, it had a large impact in that Queen Mary’s authority as Monarch was questioned and ridiculed by the actions that drove so close to her residence in 1554. Historians argue that the volatile combination of politics, religion and Mary’s personality were major factors in the rebellion’s formation as well as the fear the prospect of a Spanish King visited upon the nobles. Mary’s ascension to the throne of England was marked with extraordinary political and religious circumstance: the return of Catholicism in England marshalled by Mary was a decision met with gratefulness and one that pleased many of those citizens supressed under the Tudor dynasty’s progressive and eventually full protestant stance. However, Mary’s gender meant that she couldn’t enjoy the same levels of independence and power as those wielded by her brother and father. Mary’s announcement that she intended to marry Philip II of Spain in 1554 divided her privy council into two distinct groups; one opposing her marriage, favouring the possible courter, Edward Courtenay (Earl of Devon), and the other, who supported the Spanish Monarch. The reasons for these split alliances were deeply ingrained in foreign policy, with those supporting Philip’s prospects seeking the advantages of a strong Anglo-Spanish...

Words: 1363 - Pages: 6

Stalin the Red Tsar. How Far Do You Agree with This Judgement?

...Stalin the Red Tsar. How far do you agree with this judgement? Stalin, upon his rise to power in 1929, assured the Russian peoples that he was a dedicated follower of Leninism; often saying that “Lenin is always with us” indicating that he wished to show how similar to Lenin he was going to be in his leadership. Despite this claim, in actual fact there were a number of distinctly Tsarist elements to his leadership. A Tsar is a leader who rules without parliaments in an absolute autocracy, often being resistant to any reforms; maintaining the feudal, peasant-based illiterate society. Furthermore, they were often intrinsically bound with the Russian Orthodox Church as well as being distinctively imperialistic and chauvinistic. To a large degree, Stalin fitted this model, perhaps most notably due to his “top-down” approach to leadership, thus leading to the idea that he was a “Red Tsar”. He did not fit the model fully, though, especially when it came to being anti-reform, where in fact Stalin was all for reform (though not always for the better) and believed in modernising the USSR and, despite his anti-Western stance, was a Westerniser and not a Slavophile. He was also not imperialistic like the Tsarist leaders had been, and knew that people would react badly to Russian cultural imperialism. The belief that Stalin was a Red Tsar perhaps also came from his self-portrayal as a ‘God-like’ figure, and his employment of very traditional tactics of fear and propaganda in his......

Words: 1613 - Pages: 7

How Far Do You Agree That Stalin’s Position as General Secretary Was the Main Factor in His Emergence as Leader of Russia?

...How far do you agree that Stalin’s position as General Secretary was the main factor in his emergence as leader of Russia? After Lenin’s death in 1924, the Communist leadership of Russia was thrown into disarray. There were many different ideas for the future of the country, the strongest of which was socialism, which caused many various contenders for the party to emerge. There was a struggle of power between these contenders, but Stalin eventually emerged as the successful new leader of the USSR. Stalin’s position as General Secretary was the main factor in this emergence as leader. Stalin’s position of General Secretary allowed him to use and abuse Lenin’s systems to get to the top. Stalin had the power to control what was discussed and how politburo decisions were carried out, and he also had the significant influence of patronage. This allowed him to access most of the Communist party, his power of patronage allowed him to use his authority to place his most reliable supporters in key positions within the party. As a result, there people were extremely loyal to Stalin as they owed their place to him, and therefore he could count on their support. These people became known as his delegates as they could also be known to vote in Stalin’s favour. Stalin also had other key positions in the party, which allowed him to outmanoeuvre his rivals through a series of alliances. He was head of the Sovnarkom, which allowed him to expel any party members who disagreed with his......

Words: 1111 - Pages: 5

“the Main Source of Jane Eyre’s Interest Is the Story of Immense Human Endurance” How Far Do You Agree with This Statement

...immense human endurance” How far do you agree with this statement (Explore the methods which Charlotte Bronte uses to present the idea of human endurance) Jane as narrator certainly shares with the reader a story of immense human endurance. We see this throughout the whole novel. Early example of such are in the Gateshead section of the novel where Jane endures a lack /absence of love. She is forced to endure physical and verbal cruelty though the actions of the cousin John Reed. Who taunts her about her social class and lack of money, ‘You have no business to take our books; you are a dependent, mamma says; you have no money; your father left you none; you out to beg, and not to live here with gentlemen’s children like us..’ Jane endures physical cruelty when John flung the book at Jane, striking her on the head. Through the red room we are able to see the symbolism of Jane’s entrapment, isolation and desire to break free. There is also an element of foreshadowing and imagery emphasises on how isolated Jane is from the rest of her peers “dark and haunted chamber” Even at Lowood this is a recurring theme of the unjust and sufferable nature of her childhood. The endurance from the Red Room is a symbol of her isolation from compassion during her childhood. Through the repeated use of this symbol we see how Jane is imprisoned by her own treatment. Following Jane’s escape from the Red Room we see that she when she is “then happy” with Edward the door on the Red......

Words: 939 - Pages: 4

How Far Do You Agree That Progress Was Made for Black Americans?

...How far do you agree that the years 1945-55 saw only limited progress in improving the status of African Americans? The years of 1945-55 saw limited progress in improving the status of African Americans to an extent; however, during this time period there was also an increased amount of progress for the African American community in improving their status. There were many key factors, which contributed to improving the status of African Americans, such as the work of key civil right parties, for instance the NAACP and their approach to increase grass-roots activism, and their increased membership shows their wide support. In addition to this, there was also help from economic and political victories which demonstrated a fundamental shift in the attitudes of the federal government. There was also help from de jure change, such as significant civil rights court cases and Federal Intervention from President Harry S. Truman, which as a result improved African Americans status. On the other hand, the problems that remained for African Americans was a lack of de facto change, such as the states reluctant attitude to de-segregate, and also there was opposition from the white population, which included brutal violence towards the African American Community, when they had protests. Finally, the opposition from politicians towards de-segregation and civil rights for African Americans all contributed towards limited progress in improving the status of African Americans. The......

Words: 318 - Pages: 2

How Far Do You Agree That the March Revolution of 1917 Was Due to the Failures of Nicholas 2?

...How far do you agree that the March Revolution of 1917 was due to the failures of Nicholas 2? The March Revolution of 1917 brought autocracy in Russia to an end, when ministers of the last Duma forced the Tsar Nicholas 2 to abdicate. The Revolution happened due to the Nicholas's 2 failures due his reign, however there was a number of problems which appeared before Nicholas 2 or happened without the will of Nicholas 2. When Nicholas 2 came to power in 1894, his main objective was to keep all power in his hand, in another words, Nicholas wanted to remain as an autocrat and be the only ruler of Russia. On the other hand, Nicholas 2 wasn't as reactionary as his father, because Nicholas was not prepared to be extreme in dealing with the social and political unrest in the same manner as his father. His weak leadership led to the policies which after worked against the Tsar. The first social reform was done by Nicholas 2 in 1897. It was reform which limited the working to 11,5 hours from Monday to Friday and to 10 hours on Saturday. However, these policy didn't change the attitude of workers against the Tsarist regime, because people still wanted more liberal social system and a new government which Nicholas was not intend to change. This unhappiness caused by the lack of changes or reforms led to the strike in Saint Petersburg by factory workers who were led by Father Gapon in 1905. The strike finished really dramatically, because a lot demonstrators were killed......

Words: 1372 - Pages: 6

How Far Do You Agree That Germany Was a Parliamentary Democracy by 1914?

...How far do you agree that Germany was a parliamentary democracy by 1914? During the first fourteen years of the 20th century, Germany's political system went through radical modernisation, adopting many features that are commonly associated with parliamentary democracies. The Encyclopaedia Britannica definition of a parliamentary democracy is a form of government in which the party (or a coalition of parties) with the greatest representation in the parliament (legislature) forms the government, its leader becoming the prime minister or chancellor. Executive functions are exercised by members of the parliament appointed by the prime minister to the cabinet. The parties in minority serve in opposition to the majority and have the duty to challenge it regularly. The prime minister may be removed from power whenever he loses the confidence of a majority of the ruling party or of the parliament. This form of governance originated in Britain and spread across the globe. Parliamentary democracy is different to direct democracy in that the former is a system in which citizens vote for representatives (politicians) to make decisions on their behalf, whereas in a direct democracy policy initiatives and laws would be decided on via votes/referendums involving eligible and willing to vote. Arguably the most notable condition present in the German political system in 1914 that supports the notion of Germany being a democracy was universal male suffrage, which had been upheld since......

Words: 584 - Pages: 3

How Far Do You Agree That Trotsky’s Leadership of the Red Army Was Responsible for the Survival of the Bolshevik Government? (30 Marks)

...How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? (30 marks) There were many factors that contributed to the survival of the Bolshevik Government, ranging from Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army to the failings of the Bolsheviks’ rivals for power. This essay shows that the main reason for the Bolsheviks’ continued survival through the period was not Trotsky’s great leadership of the Red Army, but the opposition’s mistakes and failings. This will be demonstrated by analysing the key factors leading to the survival of the Bolshevik Government: Trotsky’s leadership; Lenin’s leadership; The Bolsheviks’ geographical advantage; and finally the Bolsheviks’ enemies’ misunderstandings. The first key factor that contributed to the Bolshevik Governments’ survival was Trotsky’s great leadership of the Red Army. Trotsky created the Red Army from nothing and by 1919 it contained roughly 400,000 troops rising to 5 million troops by 1921. The Red Army outnumbered all opposition and when directed effectively by Trotsky they were easily able to crush any opposition. Furthermore, all enemy attacks came at different times and so could be put down individually and therefore more easily. Another way that Trotsky showed his good leadership qualities was through his forward thinking: for example, many of the troops in the Red Army were inexperienced and so Trotsky “recruited” officers from the Tsar’s army and kept them in...

Words: 1461 - Pages: 6

How Far Was Pre-Conquest England a Prosperous and Well-Governed Kingdom?

...Pre-conquest England was a relatively well-governed and somewhat prosperous kingdom; the country was cleverly run. The division of land and the hierarchy as well as the coinage, trade, towns and frequent invasions all suggest that pre-conquest England was prosperous and well-governed. However, the possible threats from the Earls to the King, the Danegeld and the King not having an heir suggest, England was less prosperous and more unstable. In the eleventh century England had developed into a sophisticated and highly organised state. The kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and East Anglia had become earldoms. Earldoms were territorial units that covered large areas each of which was controlled by an Earl. Each earldom was further divided into shires. The shire was the administrative state and the unit of local government of England, the means of which the kings enforced taxation and law. Each shire was divided into hundreds, an area covering a dozen or so villages. The smallest unit of land was a hide and this was the measurement of productive agricultural land that was taxable. Each level of this hierarchy had its own mini leader. For example, each shire was managed by a sheriff and each sheriff was controlled by an earl. All parts of the Earldoms were controlled by the monarch. This organised system demonstrates that there was a very clear hierarchy in pre-conquest England. This would have made the country easy to run, especially for the kings of different countries...

Words: 1722 - Pages: 7

‘the Reichstag Fire Was More Important Than the Night of the Long Knives for Hitler’ How Far Do You Agree with This Statement? Explain Your Answer.

...‘The Reichstag fire was more important than the Night of the Long Knives for Hitler’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.  (10)  Both the Reichstag Fire and the Knight of the Long Knives were of great importance to Hitler in hi journey towards his consolidation of power. Whereas one can be seen as the straw on the camels back to Hitler's consolidation, the other can be seen as the framework towards the final triumph. The Reichstag Fire was an important turning point in Hitler’s consolidation of power. This incident brought the Nazis many advantages and some disadvantages. When the police managed to enter the building they found a man named Marinus Van Der Lubbe, who was a Dutch communist. The fact that he was a communist enabled Hitler to use this against the communists and have 4,000 communist leaders imprisoned days before the elections. During this period of terror for Germany the police could do anything, more specifically the Nazi police. Hitler made the most out of this situation; he used the police to intimidate voters and to disrupt communist party meetings. The fact that a communist was found burning the Reichstag building made all of this possible for Hitler, although it has been argued that the Nazis might have started the fire and that Van Der Lubbe was framed for the crime. Shortly afterwards Van Der Lubbe was tried and executed. In addition, it allowed Hitler to persuade Hindenburg to pass the “Enabling Act”, which suspended......

Words: 940 - Pages: 4

“the Puritans Were Never a Serious Threat to Elizabeth” How Far Do You Agree?

...Government was potentially an extremely dangerous threat to her power. Although it may be perceived that Elizabeth was continuing to control her position soundly, it does not mean that the Puritans did not pose a threat to royal authority. Nonetheless, attempts to promote Puritan ideas were indeed crushed quickly and effectively by Elizabeth, which meant that the movement never got the chance to develop into anything highly damaging and serious. Despite this, it would be wrong to say that the Puritans never caused havoc or danger to the Queen herself and the Church. This will be exampled by 3 documents which highlight the Queen’s rapid actions to prevent this ideology from becoming reality. There was undoubtedly an increase in extreme Protestant views during Elizabeth I’s reign and although this was the belief she supported, it was never her intention to enforce it to that extremity. She grew anxious at the amount of people supporting this movement and as a method of supressing it the Government passed a law as indicated in Source 19, from the Act against Seditious Sectaries in 1593, stating that “if any person above the age of 16…go about to move or persuade any of her Majesty’s subjects or to deny her Majesty’s power and authority…the person offending shall be adjudged a felon.” It becomes clear from this that the Queen thought the Puritans were threatening enough for Parliament to create a new law that included severe punishment – the death penalty, if it was abused. Her...

Words: 1116 - Pages: 5

‘the Main Reason Why Edward and Mary’s Religious Settlements Had Limited Success Was Because Their Reigns Were so Short.’ How Far Do You Agree with This Statement?

...reason why Edward and Mary’s religious settlements had limited success was because their reigns were so short.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Jake Nicholls To an extent I do agree with this statement as Edward a devout protestant took England to the most protestant it has ever experienced this is also the same for Mary who restored the country to papal supremacy. However, due to the rebellion and opposition each of these monarchs received it hindered the complete success of their religious settlements. Edward VI, reigned for a total of six years, however what limited Edward even further is the fact he didn’t even reach the age of majority (which had been reduced to the age of sixteen) by the time of his death in 1553, which significantly reduced his level of religious influence. Perhaps if he reached the age of majority he would have brought in more extreme protestant reforms than those of his regents, this might be explained by his upbringing as his step mother Catherine Parr was a protestant therefore provided him with reformist tutors. This shows that due to his short reign it limited the success of Edward’s religious settlement. Furthermore, Edward’s issue of not providing an heir can be blamed upon his short reign, as he was only fifteen when he died. If he had produced an heir it would have meant that his Religious settlement would have been inherited and it would have been likely his heir would have been brought up a devout protestant, therefore, this......

Words: 816 - Pages: 4

How Far Do You Agree That Hitler’s Regime Was a ‘Consensus Dictatorship’?

...How far do you agree that Hitler’s Regime was a ‘consensus dictatorship’? A consensus dictatorship is on that suggests Hitler’s regime was surrounded by a general agreement. This would mean that the majority of the German public were in cooperation with the Nazi regime and agreed with both the enforced and promoted concept of the regime. Hitler had mainly achieved this by trying to ‘ win over the hearts and minds of all non-Jewish Germans’ this would mean he would have the majority of the Germans citizens on his side. However, it is also suggested that many of the people had only consented due to fear which can be inferred from source 5 that it was the methods of the Nazi apparatus of terror that had led to the people conforming. Although source 6 suggests, even without terror which wasn’t completely enforced on ordinary Germans, the German public had ‘little difficulty in conforming’. As source 6 suggests ‘Nazi terror posed no real threat to most ordinary Germans’ so most people were easily persuaded by popular policies to consent to the Nazi regime. Source 6 agrees that the Nazi Regime was a consensus dictatorship as the public knew of the terror the minority groups faced but chose to ignore it due to their own self-interest and advantages of Hitler’s policies. Evidence from reports produced by the SOPADE and SPD who were in exile indicates that the people viewed Nazi policies positively. Unemployment had also reduced falling to 350, 000 by January 1939. This prosperity......

Words: 1468 - Pages: 6

“Hitler Became Chancellor in January 1933 Because He Was the Leader of the Most Popular Party in Germany” – How Far Do You Agree with This Opinion.

...because he was the leader of the most popular party in Germany” – How far do you agree with this opinion. Hitler did not become chancellor in January 1933 because he was the leader of the most popular party in Germany, it was however to do with the support of the elite that made him Chancellor. There were other factors also such as the decline of the Weimar Republic and the economy but it was mainly to do with the conservatives. One factor that shows that the support of the elite was the reason that Hitler had become Chancellor was the event of the Bamberg conference. It could be argued that this conference had changed the ideology of the NSDAP and had made it more conservative. In the Bamberg conference, a new autocratic, and centralised structure was discussed, which stressed complete obedience to Hitler and the Fuhrerprinzip, and adherence to the “programme of 1920”. However it could be argued that the main reason why he had won the vote was due to the support of the elite, which includes Gustav Krupp and Hugenburg, who was a media tycoon. These elites had promised Hitler funding and they were against the radical anti-capitalism of Gregor Strasser. This shows how Hitler had become chancellor in 1933 because of the support of the conservatives as without them he may not have been the leader of the nazi party to start with. One argument that would show to some extent it was due to the fact that Hitler’s party was the most popular, which made him the chancellor was the......

Words: 936 - Pages: 4