To What Extent Was Edward the Confessor a Successful Monarch?

In: Other Topics

Submitted By Jammer007
Words 771
Pages 4
To what extent was Edward the Confessor a successful monarch?
Edward was a successful monarch because throughout his reign there were few rebellions and the kingdom was mostly at peace. However, he could also be considered an unsuccessful monarch as he exiled Godwin and his son Swegn and yet after, renounced their exile. Edward brought Normans to England and gave them positions of power. Robert of Jumièges was brought to England and became the Archbishopric of Canterbury from 1051 to 1052. Another Norman brought over was Ralph the Timid (Ralph of Mantes) who was Edward’s nephew and he was the Earl of Herford from 1051 to 1055/57. These appointments were to the dislike of many Anglo-Saxon nobles, especially Godwin, as they believed that high positions such as Archbishopric were meant to be held by Anglo-Saxons. Edward mainly appointed these Normans because he trusted them more than some Anglo-Saxons, this shows the Edward was very self-sufficient and that he could use his power for things that he wanted, instead of being controlled by Earls such as Godwin. It is also a statement of who is in control and who the leader is. The earldom of Herefordshire was held by Godwin’s son Swegn and so by appointing a Norman to that position it emphasises his power. These are all good qualities of a successful monarch.
Because of this ability to cement that he is in charge and show who is in power, there were very few rebellions during Edward’s reign from 1042 to 1066. One of the few rebellions which were against him was when Godwin refused to attack the people of Dover and so fled and became exiled in 1051 and then in 1052 he led a fleet into London down up the Thames river. Edward’s army refused to fight as they didn’t want to start a civil war, and so Edward had to let Godwin back. Because of these few rebellions it shows how Edward was a successful monarch as if he was…...

Similar Documents

To What Extent Was Hitler's Economic Policy Coherent?

...debate in many different areas, and an important part of it was whether he had control over what happened, and similarly if it was coherent or not. Hitler ‘did’ potentially have control over the economy directly if he wanted to use it, instead he delegated the management of the important thing to subordinates of many different departments and offices, resulting in failure. Hitler did have control, but didn’t use it to his full extent, instead he gave brief outlines of what he wanted done to suit his economic policy. Likewise, his policies were nowhere near coherent if we look between 1933 and 1945, instead his economic policy fluctuated depending on international affairs. [Slide 2] Hitler’s economy was not planned from the start and it never was. Obviously the first steps were to recover from the wall street crash of 1929, but nothing more than that. Instead, what we saw was Hitler shaping his economic policy around the basis that foreign policy drove economy policy, and it was there to satisfy his needs of what he was doing with his military. To prove that his economic policy was not coherent we can take a look at the three main changes between 1933 and 1939, i.e. the recovery period, the rearmament period and the war period. Each is so distinct and so unlike the other that historians have branded them as different eras. In this sense, his policy was not coherent. The only thing that was however, was that it was based around his needs throughout his time in......

Words: 757 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Was Italy Unified by 1870?

...To what extent was Italy Unified by 1870? By 1870, Italy had finally captured Rome and as a result of this military victory had conquered the whole of the Italian Peninsula. Previously, the Austrians controlled Venetia and Lombardy so subsequently Italy was divided into many different states. However, by 1870, Piedmont had managed to unite all of Italy under one ruler. On the other hand, there were many divisions in this new state leading up to 1870. For example there were many people in the South of Italy who felt that they were being forced to pay and adapt to the Northern Italian way of life. Another issue was that Italy would be a federal state therefore weakening its power and that there would be not a sense of great national unity. Leading on from this in 1870, Italy had a weak government that could not control key political figures such as Garibaldi. There were also problems over the economic integration of this new state and that the infrastructure was poor. Another issue was that Rome and Venice had only been recently captured by the Italians and there was fallout over these recent events. The Pope had failed to recognise that Rome was even part of Italy and many people may have agreed with the Pope such was his influence in those times. By 1870, there were many problems with the South of Italy. The region had a poor economy and there was widespread poverty that was incompatible with the North. Another reason why it was a problem was that there was a lot of......

Words: 1399 - Pages: 6

To What Extent Was Italy Unified by 1870?

...To what extent was Italy Unified by 1870? By 1870, Italy had finally captured Rome and as a result of this military victory had conquered the whole of the Italian Peninsula. Previously, the Austrians controlled Venetia and Lombardy so subsequently Italy was divided into many different states. However, by 1870, Piedmont had managed to unite all of Italy under one ruler. On the other hand, there were many divisions in this new state leading up to 1870. For example there were many people in the South of Italy who felt that they were being forced to pay and adapt to the Northern Italian way of life. Another issue was that Italy would be a federal state therefore weakening its power and that there would be not a sense of great national unity. Leading on from this in 1870, Italy had a weak government that could not control key political figures such as Garibaldi. There were also problems over the economic integration of this new state and that the infrastructure was poor. Another issue was that Rome and Venice had only been recently captured by the Italians and there was fallout over these recent events. The Pope had failed to recognise that Rome was even part of Italy and many people may have agreed with the Pope such was his influence in those times. By 1870, there were many problems with the South of Italy. The region had a poor economy and there was widespread poverty that was incompatible with the North. Another reason why it was a problem was that there was a lot of......

Words: 1399 - Pages: 6

To What Extent Was Protestantism Fully Established by 1553?

...It is my opinion that Protestantism was not fully established by 1553 however, I do believe that it progressed considerably during Edward’s reign despite the opinions of individuals such as John Foxe who summarised that ‘much tranquillity and, as it were, breathing time was granted to the whole Church of England’ during the years 1547 – 1553. Doctrinally, there were decided steps taken towards Protestantism during Edward’s reign; beginning as early as 1547 with the Royal Injunctions, Chantries Act and widespread iconoclasm. It is feasible, that the early period of Edward’s reign can be seen as a period of destruction with regards to Catholic practice. The presence of radical figures such as Nicholas Ridley reflected the destructive nature undertaken particularly, in London and which later sparked rebellion. But the general lack of overall opposition can rightly be seen to have made enforcement of changes easier for the government. Once the use of the old religion had been forbidden by law, the introduction of Protestant ideas was quick to follow with the publication of the First Common Prayer Book in May 1549. This outlined a uniform approach to religious services but imposed a more moderate approach to reform than that which had been followed in 1547 with fast and holy days remaining. From 1550 the Duke of Northumberland, advanced the cause for Protestantism but it is important to recognise that there were personal motives behind this; a clear emphasis on extracting the......

Words: 498 - Pages: 2

In the Context of the Period 1825-1937, to What Extent Was the First Five Year Plan (1928-1933) the Most Successful Change to Russian Economic Output?

...history of the country of Russia. While the NEP system was not formally repudiated, official policies increasingly came to contradicts fundamental assumptions. The first five year plan (1928-1933) could be construed as a general success even though it did have its moment of failure. The first five year plan was introduced in Russia in an attempt to catch up with the more advanced west. As Stalin said 'We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years.' The focus of the first five year plan on heavy industry made huge strides in modernising industry and increasing output, in that 'Coal, iron, and the generation of electrical power all increased in huge proportion’s and Russia felt it could compete again on a scale with its western rivals. However, despite overarching economic development, many of the targets set by central panning didn't consider the quality of products or waste of materials and on reflection, highlight a number of fundamental flaws in the measurement of success of the first five year plan. Stalin's idea of collectivisation forced the peasants to move to a commune, share the livestock and equipment whilst having to give the government their share of the revenue. 'The government figured that new technology and new farming machines, would allow mass production of food without the large amount of workers that was needed before'. Collectivisation was therefore introduced to increase efficiency and......

Words: 3975 - Pages: 16

To What Extent Was the Development of the Post

...To what extent was the development of the post - Stalin thaw in superpower relations between 1952 and 1962 the result of Khrushchev's policy of peaceful coexistence? After the death of Stalin in 1953, there was a general improvement in Superpower relations and occasionally both superpowers were willing to meet and negotiate, which in turn led to a much more stable world in comparison to 1945-52 when the Soviet Union was ruled under Stalin’s oppressive regimes. Khrushchev proposed a policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’ although previously proposed by Malenkov’s ‘New Course’, to which the USA responded with ‘New Look’ and ‘Flexible Response’. These changes led to the Post-Stalin thaw witnessing events such as the Geneva Summit and Khrushchev's visit to US. Peaceful coexistence was a hesitant move towards better dialogue between the two superpowers. Khrushchev accepted the Marxist belief that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, and peaceful coexistence was the best way of conducting relations in the meantime. The fact that by 1949 the division of Europe into two camps, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, had been established and consolidated gave relations between East and West a degree of stability. The Iron Curtain was now a defined line marker the border of recognised spheres of influence, with their positions secure, the superpowers were more willing to attempt negotiation resulting in the thaw. Peaceful coexistence had many successes, including the armistice concluded in Korea,......

Words: 1213 - Pages: 5

To What Extent Was the Kulturkampf a Political Misjudgement by Bismarck?

...To what extent was the Kulturkampf a political misjudgement by Bismarck? [30] The Kulturkampf was launched by Bismarck – President of Prussia – as an attack on the Catholic Centre Party to weaken its political influence and the Catholic community as a whole. It aimed to sway the loyalties of the Catholics away from the Pope and more to the side of the Prussian Kaiser and the German state. The Kulturkampf simply failed due to the fact that Bismarck had miscalculated the extent to which Catholics in Germany were loyal to the Pope. This fact became explicit when the Kulturkampf – through its policies – actually worked to increase support for the Centre Party. This was completely not in favour with Bismarck’s desired outcome of weakening the Party. This Catholic bond transpired to be much stickier than first thought. The’ victimisation’ of Catholics in Germany by Bismarck united them in contempt for the latter instead of weakening them as first desired by Bismarck and was the reason why he reversed the regressive laws put in place to weaken the Centre Party. He realised that he had misjudged the entire situation. It also transpired that Bismarck had pulled the short straw as he had chosen a tough and resilient enemy in the German Catholics. He had effectively consolidated support and sympathy for Catholics in Germany and this was also a primary reason as to why the Kulturkampf failed. Bismarck simply did not know who his biggest enemy was. Also, Protestants’ refusal of......

Words: 606 - Pages: 3

To What Extent Was Khruschev Successful in the Destalinisation Policy

...How successful was Khrushchev’s policy of destalinization Destalinization was a political reform launched by Soviet Communist Party First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev at the 20th Party Congress, otherwise known as the secret speech. The main components of the reforms were changing or removing prominent institutions that had helped Stalin remain in power; the Stalinist political system, political party members that had supported him (beginning with the arrest and subsequent execution of political rival Lavrentiy Beria) and the removal of the Gulag labour camp system. Khrushchev was desperate to present himself as a reformer, completely breaking away from the reliance of ‘fear into submission’ tactics of the Stalinist era, by presenting himself as a ‘man of the people’. He wished to lessen the gap between the soviet leadership and the people, whilst undermining his predecessors’ dictatorship rule. It has been argued that his attempt to end the use of terror both in political and public life and the reintegration of those who had fallen victim to said terror, was one of the successes of the destalinization policy. This included the released of five million prisoners from labour camps. A total of eight million prisoners had been released by the end of 1956. Shortly after, in 1961, Khrushchev initiated a campaign to rename cities that previously honoured Stalin; Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd. Stalin’s persona was publicly attacked; most importantly in destroying his image...

Words: 785 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Was Josef Stalin’s Employment of Collectivisation a Successful Endeavour for the Soviet Economy?

...Union, specifically looking at the impact it had on the peasants of Russia and whether it aided in satisfying the Soviet Union’s economic needs. In order to assess the extent to which collectivisation was a success, this investigation examines and evaluates the first few years of collectivisation, assessing collectivisation’s impact on the economy of the Soviet Union and the people, as a stronger economy would greatly improve the livelihood of the masses. Ultimately this investigation assesses the wisdom of Stalin’s decision to partake in collectivisation. This analysis does not assess Stalin’s abilities as a leader, the Ukrainian ‘holodomor’, or the industrialisation process in the Soviet Union. A number of sources were used in this analysis, and two of them are evaluated for their value and limitations. Summary of evidence: • Implemented in 1928 • By collectivising Stalin hoped to increase agricultural output, create grain reserves and make available more peasants for work in the cities. • Two types of farms; collective farms and state farms. The process of collectivisation was intended to be voluntary and took place in the countryside as peasants were expected to group their holdings into one unit (kolkhoz). • 90% of the kolkhoz produce was to be sold to the state whilst the remaining 10% of the produce was the peasants’ share. In addition to this, peasants were expected to grow crops such as flax to aid Russian industry, as opposed to subsistence farming.......

Words: 2115 - Pages: 9

To What Extent Was Edward the Confessor a Successful Monarch?

...To what extent was Edward the Confessor a successful monarch? Edward was a successful monarch because throughout his reign there were few rebellions and the kingdom was mostly at peace. However, he could also be considered an unsuccessful monarch as he exiled Godwin and his son Swegn and yet after, renounced their exile. Edward brought Normans to England and gave them positions of power. Robert of Jumièges was brought to England and became the Archbishopric of Canterbury from 1051 to 1052. Another Norman brought over was Ralph the Timid (Ralph of Mantes) who was Edward’s nephew and he was the Earl of Herford from 1051 to 1055/57. These appointments were to the dislike of many Anglo-Saxon nobles, especially Godwin, as they believed that high positions such as Archbishopric were meant to be held by Anglo-Saxons. Edward mainly appointed these Normans because he trusted them more than some Anglo-Saxons, this shows the Edward was very self-sufficient and that he could use his power for things that he wanted, instead of being controlled by Earls such as Godwin. It is also a statement of who is in control and who the leader is. The earldom of Herefordshire was held by Godwin’s son Swegn and so by appointing a Norman to that position it emphasises his power. These are all good qualities of a successful monarch. Because of this ability to cement that he is in charge and show who is in power, there were very few rebellions during Edward’s reign from 1042 to 1066. One of the few......

Words: 771 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Was Henry Vii a Great King.

...deserve to be called a great king. Above all he was lucky. How far do you agree with this? I agree with this statement to an extent because at certain points during Henry's reign, considering the way in which he dealt with situations, it indicates that Henry was very lucky. For example, when rebellions arose during his rule, he initially never had a plan to follow before the rebellions actually occurred so he was always unprepared for them. The only reason as to why Henry was successful in putting them down was because the rebellions themselves are argued to not be as serious as they seem since they were more or less like protests rather than attempts to seize the throne e.g. the Yorkshire rebellion 1489 which was created by the introduction of parliamentary tax. Also, the fact that there even was rebellions goes to show that Henry wasn't respected and feared among the public which suggests that Henry's rule wasn’t stable and strong so therefore, he wasn't a 'great' king considering he couldn't control the public in his own kingdom. However, I also disagree with this statement due to the fact that Henry did do some considerable activities which suggest that his successful reign wasn’t based on luck and that is was based on his astute reign. For instance, Henry thrivingly controlled his personal finances and lead to them being increased by a considerable amount from a previously empty pot (due to the fact that previous monarchs were involved in civil wars). As a result of his...

Words: 722 - Pages: 3

To What Extent Did Wilhelm Ii Have the Character to Be a Successful Kaiser?

...To what extent did Wilhelm II have the character to be a successful Kaiser? Kaiser Wilhelm II was the head of state of the German Empire from 1888 to 1918. He was a staunch authoritarian and very militaristic in his outlook; this made him popular with the more conservative elements of German society, but set him against many German socialists and Marxists. However, it was his character rather than his personality which determined his suitability as a leader, which is what we shall discuss in this essay. Wilhelm’s father, Frederick, became Kaiser in March 1888 but died from throat cancer after only a few months. Wilhelm succeeded his father at the age of 29 in June 1888. Upon first glance, Wilhelm appeared to posses qualities that would make him an ideal Kaiser. Having enjoyed the company of his grandfather and the Bismarcks from an early age, he had grown up to be a strong authoritarian and a firm believer in the divine right of kings. While many would claim these to be bad qualities for a leader to have, it could be argued that they would be essential for the ruler of the German Empire. German society at the time was very structured, and it would be quite plausible to say that it needed a dominant leader such as the Kaiser to look up to. Wilhelm’s authoritarian stance also secured the support of the ‘elites’, mainly the Junkers, military leaders and industrialists, as well as conservative politicians, who were keen to uphold the status quo. His authoritarianism went......

Words: 786 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Was the Revolt in the Netherlands Caused by the Actions and Attitudes of Philip Ii?

...To what extent was the revolt in the Netherlands caused by the actions and attitudes of Philip II? By 1576, Phillips religious intolerance and financial mismanagement can be seen as a major cause of the outbreak of three revolts within the Netherlands. In 1566, 1572 and 1576 the Netherlanders decided that it was time to bear arms agaised their ever absent monarch, Phillip II. The increasing spanish centralisation and subsequent decline of particularism turned the people against spanish control. However we must asses weather the decline of the traditional aristocracy, caused by a rising mercantile class was a factor that led to the rebellion. The growing dissatisfaction of the grandees certainly helped to provide leadership, however the social and economic deprivation of the lower classes, caused by Phillip II's stubborn religious policies, gave the peasants due cause to rise up. Throughout he's reign Phillip constantly made poor appointments in the Netherlands. When he made Margaret of Parma, his half sister, regent he refused to give her any actual power in the area. This made her a completely useless figure head. After her resignation Philip replaced her with the Duke of Alva. Philip said "I remit all power to you", this would therefore allow Alva to have an impact on the netherlands, however this proved to be a very negative impact. Alva introduces the 10th and 100th penny taxation which proved extremely unpopular and alienated the nation against Alva and therefore......

Words: 834 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Was Germany a Parliamentary Democracy in the Years 1900-14?

...limited) to the legislative body of the Reichstag and Bundesrat which satisfies the basic expectations of a parliamentary democracy. However, although the constitution of the day had democratic elements, Bismarck was cautious in preserving the power of the elite. As a result, the constitutional powers of the Kaiser meant that he maintained sovereignty and in fact, Germany could arguably have been an entrenched autocracy during the years of 1900-1914. Without doubt, the system of universal suffrage is significant support for parliamentary democracy in Germany during these years. The access to voting for all men over 25 regardless of their social class was a big development and certainly democratic when compared to the limited suffrage of other nations at the time. Evidently, political parties were encouraged to appeal to wider groups in society rather than just the wealthy; The Social Democratic Party, who represented the working class, was able to win majority seats in the Reichstag in the 1912 election. This shows that democracy and representation of the people was present to some extent. Additionally, one could contradict the theory of Germany being an autocracy by outlining the influence of others, besides Kaiser, on German policy. Von Tirpitz, a military figure, was able to push Navy Laws through the Reichstag on 3 separate occasions, and Junkers, who were among the elite, led a number of pressure groups like the Agrarian League. It could be argued that an elite-led......

Words: 969 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Are the Biggest Pressure Groups the Most Successful 25 Marks

...to what extent are the biggest pressure groups the most successful Success in pressure groups is defined by how they affect government policy, their agenda-setting power and how well they can change people’s ideologies. There are many other factors that contribute to the success of a pressure group i.e.: the finances that have been gained, the widespread support of the pressure group, the cause of the group itself and the organisation of the group. But it is important that all of the aforementioned factors work collaboratively to produce a successful pressure group. the biggest pressure groups the most successful to some extent as I believe that size alone does not necessarily mean that the pressure group with the most members will ultimately be the most successful Some argue that the more members a pressure group has the more successful it is, because it can then be functionally representative of the public. The TUC has 7 million members supporting it's “cause” making very successful as the government can see that this group is representing a large public opinion. If a group such as the TUC were to support a political party for example, the party would notice a considerable difference in support with the TUC's backing than without. Pressure groups that have more members, leads to more donations, proving that size is necessary in order for pressure groups to be the most successful. Chequebook groups tend to get most of their finance from their members, for example......

Words: 1061 - Pages: 5