King Henry VII: Who Was The Better King

Historian Allan Mitchell writes that Bonapartism was “a model for Bismarckian politics”. There is evidence that shows that Bismarck was indeed influenced by the way Napoleon III ruled in a fast changing society racked by tension between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Historian classify Bismarckism as Bonapartist as he never founded his own political movement and avoided becoming dependant on retaining confidence of the monarchy. Furthermore, there were some smaller German states that agreed with “Bonapartism” as they saw it as a desire to revise in a reactionary sense the constitution given in 1848. This is significant as Bismarck would have needed to appeal to all German states any by incorporating Bonapartist views into his policy he would be appealing to the smaller states, which in turn would support

The changes he made in the policies and style of government during the next years played a big role in the outbreak of war during 1914. Compared to Bismarck, who chose really conservative politics between the 1870s and 1880s, Wilhelm opted for a militaristic and expansionist political path, in order to defend Germany’s “Place in The Sun”. Many people believe that Kaiser Wilhelm’s role wasn’t as important for the outbreak of war, but what happened in the past proves the exact opposite, by realising that military and foreign campaigns were the main objectives of the Kaiser we can see a strong connection between the Wilhelmine policy, the Kaiser and the beginning of World War I in 1914.

France began building toward absolutism when Henry VI created the Edict of Nantes in efforts to reduce the violence in the country and gained many supporters. When Richelieu temporarily took the throne he centralized the government and established the supremacy of the king's law. When Louis XIV finally became king, Franch was already well on its way to an absolute monarchy. He went even further by diminishing the power of the nobility and gave them only ceremonial tasks until they we no longer relevant in the political

The war began in 1337 after Charles IV, the king of France, died without producing a male heir and many questioned who would become France’s next leader. Charles had said before his death that his cousin, Philip of Valois, another frenchman, should become king after his death. Unfortunately for Philip, Charles’ sister, Isabella, whose son, Edward III, was the king of England, believed that Edward should become king of France as well. Philip was recognized as king, despite that Isabella’s line of descent was more directly related to Charles IV. This conflict set off a period of war between England and France.

He was betrayed from within his own family. King Richard II was born to be a leader, but his strong presence in the military would eventually become his downfall. To better establish the personal attributes and leadership qualities of King Richard II, his background must first be understood. He was born in England in the year 1367 and ruled England from 1377 to 1399 (Saul, 1997).

Bernadotte performed well and the invasion was repelled. When Bernadotte returned to Paris, his position was uncertain. He was appointed as ambassador to Rome but before he could take up his new position he received a completely unexpected offer from Sweden. The current King of Sweden was the elderly and childless Charles XIII.

Maybe because countries didn’t expect that big difference between Bismarcks and Wilhem II’s foreign policy. In 1890 Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck from office. Bismarck left behind a political system designed to give maximum power to the Kaiser and his Chancellor. 2 So Wilhelm II’s foreign policy started. Meanwhile, his Chancellors changed all the time, because there weren’t Chancellor who would take his orders meekly from the

France refused to withdraw their decision, yet it agreed to Germany’s Kaiser’s request for an international conference to discuss further actions. This was extremely rough on Germany since only Austria-Hungary, which is an ally, supported the Kaiser’s interpretations. Furthermore, Britain and Russia supported France, adding to the fact that Britain and France began secret military talks after the conference to strengthen their relationship. Britain, once more, supported France when the Kaiser of Germany accused France of taking over Morocco, and started to prepare for war. These preparations also came out of Britain being uncomfortable of the fact that Germany is expanding its navy.

(Carroll 517). Joan of Arc’s voices would change the history of the Middle Ages and eventually make Joan of Arc a saint. Joan of Arc's ideas encouraged people to look at France as a country and not just a cluster of provinces; this was a start to nationalism. People started looking more to the King for leadership, and feudalism was destroyed. However, while she was a hero to the French, Joan of Arc was nothing but insurgent to the English.

He is neither a hero nor a villain rather he is a victim of his self-indulgence. (Bloom. 249-150) In Shakespeare 's view, Richard is a failure as a king not because he is immoral, nor because he is too sensitive and refined for the job, but because he misunderstands the nature of kingship. (Elliott. History and

P9 The English had started to be more active since the Siege of Orleans. The Duke of Bedford started to call in troops from other English-occupied territories and started helping his allies on the battlefield more, however still demanded more money. P10 (a) After Charles and Joan reunited, Joan convinced Charles to go to Reims Cathedral to be crowned as the next King of France. From Louis VIII(8th) in 1223 to Charles X(10th) in 1825, the Reims Cathedral is the birthplace of kings of France.

Without these events Americans would have never been prompted with wanted to become free and break away from British rule. The unfair treatments of the American soldiers during the seven years’ war which were no recognition for the assistance with Britain in winning the war, not being able to migrate west of the Appalachian Mountains because of the proclamation of 1763, and being forced into the war because of the French invasion of the Ohio country. The seven years’ war is similar to the events of World War II because the Americans were thrown into a war that they did not want to join. The main difference is that in World War II the Americans were granted their title for victory unlike the seven years’ war were the British said they did not help in the victory.

(Doc 2) Still shaken by the events of World War II, where German leader Adolf Hitler invaded France and much of Europe for land power, de Gaulle was fearful that a Western European union with German leadership would undo the resolutions of the war. France, having been allied with Britain in the previous wars against Germany, wanted to renew this alliance in the form of a European Union under French and British leadership. However after the formation of the European Economic Community, an organization promoting economic integration among France, West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, 21 years later, Charles de Gaulle took a different stance on leadership in Europe. (Doc 8) Having been rejected by Britain in the earliest unification attempts, de Gaulle became supportive of a sans-Britain Community. De Gaulle’s view, removed from the immediacy of French-German conflict, started agreeing with the idea of a French and German led Community, united by similar economies and therefore similar interests.

He followed her every word to get closer to the crown, but one: James married Anne, the crowned princess of Denmark, whereas Elizabeth wanted to choose his wife. On Elizabeth’s deathbed, she crowned James the king of England. After this James was as happy as could be, whereas the people were skeptical. Because he was Mary’s son, the Catholics thought that he would stop their persecution and side with their religion, and the Puritans thought he would side with the Catholic religion as well. Because of this, Puritans were saying that James was a corrupt, lazy, coward to try to discredit him as a ruler.

In 1460 through 1550 the “New Monarchs” in France, England, and Spain will create the groundwork of the modern nation-states development. This was stalled until the late 18 century and early 19 century because of the people 's lack of nationalism, since relations were closer near home. The partial reason for New Monarchs was because of the political structure failure in the 15 century that created money issues for sustaining knights, thus power rise for New Monarchs happened for the first time ever. Whereas, the new monarchs that began the initiation contained authority with the people’s interests and wills, while absolutism stayed at bay, and New Monarch’s secular law systems were being installed. The shape shifting characteristics of New Monarchs