Comparing The Careers Of Lionel Cranfield, Earl Of Middlesex and George Villiers, Duke Of Buckingham Lionel Cranfield was an astute businessman who had made large sums of money for himself through his dealings in trade and as part of a syndicate that had won the custom forms. He was anxious to gain entry into royal service and had acted as Buckingham's financial adviser. The Council was determined to cut expenditure and made Cranfield Master of the Wardrobe. This department was costing £42000 a year and Cranfield was appointed on the understanding that if costs fell below £20000, he could keep any additional savings. This figure was quickly surpassed and Cranfield made a profit of over £7000 a year. He achieved similar success in the Household down by £18000 from £77000, the Ordnance (£34000 to £14000) and the Navy (£53000 to £30000). In 1621, Cranfield was created Lord Treasurer as the Earl Of Middlesex. When he became treasurer, the royal finances were in a desperate state. Cranfield attempted to control the flow of royal generosity. A new Book of Bounty was issued in 1619 and in 1621 he demanded an immediate stop to the payment of pensions and insisted that new grants should be screened by himself. Due to both James' and Buckingham greed and need to spend money, Cranfield only survived as Lord Treasurer for two and a half years and made many enemies, due to both his difficult personality and his drive and determination. Cranfield exploited existing sources of revenue more effectively but failed to achieve other things. He did not manage to reduce pensions and to end the practised whereby men would sell or bequeath them to others. Cranfield also refused to sell the crown lands, as he believed that it made the King's authority look weak and it reduced his future income. The Court then thought of Cranfield as a mean and money-grabbing merchant when he used money saving schemes such as using a ten-year old flag. As long as Cranfield had the support of both James and Buckingham, he
Due to the unstable political environment of the period 1399-1509, royal power varied from monarch to monarch, as parliament’s ability to limit this power fluctuated. There are several factors in limiting royal power, including the king’s relationship with parliament, royal finances and a king’s popularity, often due to military success. The most significant of these factors, however is the king's finances, as one of parliament's primary roles was to consider the king’s requests for taxation, and thus denying these requests would have been one of the few ways to effectively limit royal power.
Elizabeth’s Relationship With Her Parliaments Over the years, there has been much debate amongst historians Orthodox, Revisionist and Post – Revisionist, as to whether the relationship between Elizabeth and her parliaments was one of “conflict and contest,” or of “cooperation and consent”. Most of the different schools of thought agree on the facts, but disagree in their interpretations of the relationship. In general, taking into account all of the parliaments that took place throughout Elizabeth’s reign, the contemporary historians believe that Elizabeth’s relationship with her parliaments was one of “cooperation and consent.” The orthodox historians believe that Elizabeth’s relationship with her parliaments was one of “conflict and contest” and that it came from the puritan choir in the House of Commons. The revisionist historians believe that there was a relationship of “cooperation and consent”.
Why Thomas Wentworthand William Laud Were Unpopular The term “Thorough” in this context means “Getting the job done efficiently” Wentworth evolved the policy known as "Thorough" by which he managed the administration of Church and State during the period of King Charles' Personal Rule. In January 1632, he was made Lord Deputy of Ireland, largely because of his reputation for harshness. There he exercised the "Thorough" with a certain degree of brutality, propagating the English tradition of using Ireland as a practice ground for social and military experimentation. There are many reasons why Thomas Wentworth became so unpopular, partly down to the use of his “thorough” methods, by 1628
training when he came to power in 1485, had managed in the time he was
The compelling accounts of Boston King and David George certainly allow the reader to attain a higher degree of respect and sorrow for the slaves of the south during the time of the American Revolution. There is no question that these two slaves, in addition to countless others, suffered much more than any man should ever have to. The daily fear that amounted to chaos in their minds day in and day out are enough to send shivers down ones spine. The risks these men took for their family to acquire freedom certainly should not go unnoticed. One can read and immediately see many distinct similarities in these two accounts of dangerous decisions made by these men to overcome their slavery, but these similarities are, as mentioned, easily spotted.
1760 - George III came to the throne, he was proud of his country and
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
King Charles the Second, to gratify some nobles about him, made two great grants out of that country. These grants were not of the uncultivated wood land only, but also of plantations, which for many years had been seated and improved, under the encouragement of several charters granted by his royal ancestors to that colony. Those grants were distinguished by the names of the Northern and Southern grants of Virginia, and the same men were concerned in both. They were kept dormant some years after they were made, and in the year 1674 begun to be put in execution. As soon as ever the country came to know this, they remonstrated against them; and the assembly drew up an humble address to his majesty, complaining of the said grants, as derogatory
“My sins of omission and commission I do not deny; but I trust that it may be said of me in the ultimate issue, ‘Much is forgiven because he loved much’, for I have loved my country with a passionate love.”
Jeremy Silbert, This is not an attack, just my reply. You said: " The British government in the 1700s was not democratically elected. Within Britain, franchise was limited to the wealthiest.
In addition George Rice was related through his mother to the prime minister of the day, Lord Newcastle. In 1761 Newcastle appointed George Rice Lord-Commissioner of the Board of Trade and Foreign Plantations at a salary of £1,000 a year (worth over £1 million a year today), showing that Rice knew exactly how to use his family connecti...
“We Shall Fight on the Beaches and Day of Infamy are two unalike speeches. Roosevelt and Churchill had dissimilar ideas of their country's’ situation and purpose for being a part of the war. However, they had similar purposes in their speeches, both men wanted their countries secure, to preserve their nation’s way of life and they both to bring an end to the evil that is threatening their nations. When it comes to their differences Churchill and Roosevelt are trying to accomplish different things with their speeches. Churchill is trying to encourage and rally his nation to continue fighting. Where Roosevelt is trying to reunite his nation to enter World War II, seek recrimination, and destroy the evil that striked.
The most widely used method of control was financial forfeits such as bonds and recognisances. These could be placed on a noble even if they had not done anything which meant that they were very widespread in their use and were payable if certain conditions were not met. However the heavy and widely considered unjust, use of bonds and recognisances brought widespread hostility towards Henry. These were often used in conjunction with other policies such as retaining in order to enforce them and ensure that the nobles would be loyal.
Queen Elizabeth I was an extremely intelligent, strategic leader and a woman who proved to England numerous times that she possessed the power of a great ruler. Elizabeth’s reign is looked back on as a Golden age, in which the power of the sea was harnessed and appreciated, and the Elizabethan Renaissance emerged bringing with it an extensive education system and laws supporting the poor. Queen Elizabeth reigned as a successful ruler in England for forty five years, strengthening protestantism and challenging gender, power and politics.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a historical film about the reign of Elizabeth I during the Renaissance Era. It is a sequel to the film Elizabeth and is directed by Shekhar Kapur. This film was pleasing and enjoyable to watch despite its historical inaccuracies and goriness. The costumes and makeup and hair design were absolutely gorgeous and stunning.