Quenn Elizabeth I Essay Example for Free

Quenn Elizabeth I Essay During her time as the queen of England, Elizabeth Tudor had to make many decisions on matters both political and personal, such as new religious policies, whether she would marry, whom she would name her heir and also how much power and privilege to delegate to her parliament. The House of Commons and the House of Lords made up Elizabeth’s parliament; the Commons consisted of citizens elected by their constituency, and in the Lords there were around 100 hereditary peers and bishops. At the time, the reigning monarch got a lot more input as to what laws could be passed, and so when decisions had to be made Elizabeth was often very involved in the process. However, this occasionally led to disputes between her and her parliament, as they did not always agree on every matter. Overall, most of the disputes between the queen and her parliament were easily solved – mostly, when such an issue occurred, the queen exercised her prerogative powers to overrule the parliament, and through various methods such as banning topics of discussion, arresting any opposition and occasionally using her power of veto, she prevented any major parliamentary disagreements throughout her reign. In reality, she exercised her power of veto only a few times, and this shows that for the most part she managed to get her parliament to cooperate with her during her reign. When Elizabeth first came to the throne in 1558 she was faced with the difficult task of establishing a new common religion in a country fraught with religious tensions. The first parliament called under Elizabeth convened on 25th January 1559, and its chief business was forming the new religious settlement. The general hatred of the burning of heretics under Mary, the rapid return of exiled Protestants to England, and Elizabeth’s known Protestant sympathies were all factors that led to a distinctly Protestant House of Commons. The Reformation Bill that was drafted by the Commons was recognisably biased against Catholicism; it defined the Communion in terms of Protestant theology (disagreeing with the transubstantiation of the Catholic mass), ordered that ministers should not wear vestments, banned images from churches and included abuse of the Pope in the litany. Naturally, this was met with much resistance in the House of Lords, as there were many Marian Catholic bishops who opposed the anti-Catholic ideas. The Lords reworked much of the Bill, bringing back allowances for the belief in transubstantiation, the wearing of vestments and also refusing to give Elizabeth the title of Supreme Head of the Church. Elizabeth managed to move past the issues between the Commons and the Lords, opting to let the Catholic Lords keep many of their amendments in the Bill. Although she was known to be Protestant, she felt less strongly than many of the members in the Commons that Catholicism should be dealt with harshly. The historian Sir John Neale believes that a so-called ‘Puritan Choir’ worked to make the reforms more radically Protestant, but MPs forced Elizabeth to accept a more radical religious settlement than she wanted. However this is generally disputed nowadays; the queen’s priority was finding a compromise between the two factions and establishing a stable religion in her country. She knew she would have to compromise with the Catholic bishops and take some of their demands into account in order to avoid angering the Catholics throughout the country. However, despite her lenience towards Catholicism in the Bill, she went on to replace many of the Catholic bishops in the House of Lords, showing them that although she let them amend the settlement, she had the ultimate power and could use it to overcome any opposition. The next time Elizabeth called parliament to session, several Privy councillors and bishops (led by Thomas Norton) tried to bring about further reforms in the Church. However, these attempts failed when Elizabeth effectively banned the topic of religion; she never allowed parliament to interfere with her ecclesiastical privileges. In 1571, William Strickland called for Elizabeth to make amendments to the Prayer Book – she had him arrested, showing once and for all that decisions regarding religion were her responsibility and nobody else’s. Therefore, Elizabeth effectively made sure that parliament would cooperate with her over matters of religion. She made allowances during the first session of 1559 since drawing up a new Bill required input from both Protestant and Catholics in order to create a religion that would satisfy most of England. However, once this was established, Elizabeth used her powers to ensure that there were no further issues regarding religion; she did so effectively, and despite a few small problems such as Strickland’s arrest in 1571, the parliament understood that she did not want religion discussed, and for the most part they did cooperate with her desires on this matter. Another issue that challenged the parliament’s ability to cooperate with Elizabeth was t hat of marriage and succession. In the parliaments of 1563 and 1566, the parliament urged the queen to marry, and later on in the sessions of 1572 and 1586 the queen was pressed to name a successor. In 1562, Elizabeth almost died after a bout of smallpox, being unmarried and childless, this made her subjects worry about the situation they would be left in if she did not survive; facing a potential war over who would succeed to the throne. Not long after, in the parliamentary session of 1563, the Commons drew up an official petition, asking Elizabeth to choose a suitor to marry and name a successor her response was to tell them it was none of their business. However, she was up against a large group of influential opposition; the committee that drafted the petition included all eight Privy Councillors sitting in the Commons. This meant that she couldn’t go to her Council for advice as to how to respond – instead she had to rely on her own strength of mind and character to show the Commons that she did not approve of their pressuring her to make decisions. Elizabeth had established herself as a capable queen from the start of her reign, and the main way she avoided being influenced on the matters of marriage and succession was her strong-mindedness and her ability to command her parliament. When it came to the topic of marriage, she was quoted as having said ‘I would rather be a beggar and single, than a queen and married’ – making several such statements during her time as queen, she had made it clear by the latter years of her reign that she would not marry. Whether she planned from the start to remain single, or whether this was the approach she adopted once she had grown too old, she always remained adamant that she would not let her parliament influence her. However, throughout her reign, MPs and members of her Council continued to try, and so marriage was one issue that they were clearly more reluctant to cooperate on, despite Elizabeth’s ability to control how far they took their disagreements. When it came to the issue of succession, once again the parliament wouldn’t cooperate as much as it would on other issues, for example that of religion. From the first parliamentary session, Elizabeth was asked to name a successor, and it was a constant source of tension in the parliament when she refused to do so. Mary Queen of Scots, the next legitimate heir to the throne, married to the French king, and a Catholic, was seen as a threat to Elizabeth’s security, and Elizabeth was always faced with pressure from her parliament to do something about this. In 1572, the parliament tries to have Mary excluded from the succession, accusing her of treason as an excuse. However, Elizabeth refused to sign any bill accusing Mary of treason, thus meaning she would not be ruled out of the succession, and so in 1586 the parliament took this one step further, demanding Mary’s execution. Although Mary was a potential threat to Elizabeth’s throne, Elizabeth respected her as her cousin and as the monarch of Scotland, and so parliament was prorogued for several months while Elizabeth tried to get out of signing her death warrant. However, this is one of the few cases where parliaments refusal to cooperate with Elizabeth’s wishes led to the queen being influenced, and eventually she signed a bill calling for Mary’s execution. This caused many issues between the queen and parliament, as she clearly regretted being influenced by the parliamentary pressure, trying to distance herself from the incident afterwards and using several men, such as the Scottish diplomat William Davison, as scapegoats for the event. It is clear to see that the issues of marriage and succession were not ones that Elizabeth’s parliament wanted to cooperate on – they felt strongly that, should Elizabeth die, she should not leave them without an established successor, and they were willing to defy the queen’s wishes in order to push her on these issues. As a result of this refusal to cooperate, the queen lost her willpower – one of only a few times in her reign. Therefore marriage and succession are significant issues faced by Elizabeth and the parliament where they could not agree on what to do. All members of parliament were entitled to their parliamentary privileges; mainly freedom of speech and freedom from arrest. However, for some MPs this was not enough, and at times during Elizabeth’s reign certain members of parliament tried to increase their privileges, clearly acting against the queen’s wishes. For example, in 1576, Peter Wentworth of the House of Commons made a speech publicly saying that the queen should not be allowed to dictate conversation topics. During Elizabeth’s reign she did exercise her royal prerogative and her power as monarch to forbid certain topics she didn’t want discussed behind her back, such as religion – and as a result the parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech was reduced during her reign. Wentworth demanded that all MPs should be able to use their privilege of freedom of speech. This seems like an example of parliament refusing to cooperate once more with Elizabeth, however Wentworth was only one man, making such statements unsupported by most of parliament. Despite their occasional disagreements, parliament and Elizabeth were on the same side and so by standing up and speaking against the queen, Wentworth had effectively made a speech against his fellow parliamentarians as well. John Neale believes that Wentworth made his speech on behalf of the ‘Puritan Choir’, in support of a large portion of the Commons – however the Revisionist theory sees Wentworth as a rogue radical, an exception amongst the MPs. The events that followed suggest that the Revisionist theory is correct in this case; shortly following this speech, the House of Commons had Wentworth arrested and put in the Tower, thereby proving his point that certain topics could not be discussed without the threat of arrest. However, in arresting Wentworth, the Commons were effectively acknowledging their reduction in freedom of speech and supporting the queen nonetheless, proving that at times parliament could cooperate with Elizabeth very well indeed. Towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, an issue came about between the queen and parliament that became known as the ‘monopolies crisis’ – monopolies were a form of patronage granted to courtiers by Elizabeth, favoured by the queen because they cost her nothing and bought her support from people at court. However, monopolies over basic commodities (such as giving a courtier exclusive control over the salt trade) led prices to rocket and lined the courtier’s pocket at the expense of the whole country. As a result, monopolies were disliked greatly by members of parliament. Privy Council members benefitted too much from monopolies to support the MPs, however, and Robert Cecil’s resultant refusal to sympathise with parliament made the disagreement worse, until any subsidies requested by the government were unlikely to be supported by the Commons due to the tension. At this point, Elizabeth saw how much conflict was caused by the continuance of the giving of monopolies, and had to step in. She conceded to the Speaker’s request for her to suspend some monopolies, and the Commons were immediately satisfied. This movement signified the start of Elizabeth’s decline in power and status towards the end of her reign. Although she remained the same powerful queen that she had been in her earlier years, respected by her subjects and capable of handling situations, her willpower had seemingly declined and rather than fight a further battle with the Commons she decided to give them what they wanted. In 1601, the queen made ‘The Golden Speech’, where she significantly reduced the number of monopolies amongst the courtiers. Although her message showed that she was conceding to the demands of parliament, she made the speech so well that this U-turn in her policies was as dignified as it could have been. Despite the Commons pressuring her into reducing monopolies, the queen remained respected in her defeat. However, this was another example of an issue over which parliament didn’t manage to cooperate well with the queen. To conclude; there were several different issues throughout Elizabeth’s reign that led to disputes between her and parliament, and each time the two sides tackled the problems with varying levels of cooperation. The debate over parliamentary privileges is an example where the majority of the parliament in fact agreed with the queen, and the lack of cooperation in fact came from only a few individual members, for example Wentworth. The parliament also cooperated fairly well with Elizabeth on the matter of religion, as in 1559 they managed to draw up the new Religious Settlement having reached a fair compromise. The slight lack of cooperation experienced in further years, when members of parliament tried to bring up the topic of religion against the queen’s will (for example in the session of 1584-1585), again came from individual MPs, such as Strickland, rather than from parliament as a whole. The two examples where cooperation between Elizabeth and parliament was lacking are in the case of deciding whom Elizabeth should marry and name her heir, and also what to do about the issue of monopolies. In one instance – that of the debate over marriage and succession – Elizabeth remained strong and would not let the parliament pressure her into doing anything she didn’t want to. She remained in control throughout the decision making process, however it was an issue that continued to arise throughout her reign, in 1563, 1566 and 1586. The fact that the topic was raised by parliament so frequently shows that it was a matter on which they were never willing to cooperate. When it comes to the issue of monopolies, parliament only considered this a problem in the final session of 1601, and the queen conceded soon afterwards. Therefore we cannot tell if this was an issue on which the parliament would eventually have managed to compromise. Overall, parliament did manage to mostly cooperate with Elizabeth I throughout her reign. There were a couple of times when individual MPs stood up against the queen, but in every instance she managed to quash the opposition using her prerogative powers and strong willpower. Although the issue of marriage and succession seems like it was raised many times throughout her reign, it is worth remembering that in her 44 years as queen Elizabeth only summoned parliament 13 times, and so the parliament did not have many chances to disagree with the queen, let alone fall into serious disagreements. Therefore, despite the lack of cooperation over a few issues such as marriage, succession and monopolies, overall the queen managed to maintain control over both parliament and the amount of power the MPs held and as a result the two sides were mostly able to cooperate throughout her reign.

Arthur Millers A View From the Bridge Essay -- Arthur Miller View Br

Arthur Miller's A View From the Bridge Today hostility is viewed upon as wrong, when "A View From the Bridge" was written, hostility made up part of the day-to-day running of people in this era. Today women are treated as equals and any discrimination is taken incredibly seriously, in the time the play written, women had very few rights and were constantly stereotyped and abused. Manliness, hostility and aggression play an important role in the play, 'A View From the Bridge'. Each character has a different view on what it means to be manly and what manliness is. Eddie, the main character around which the play revolves, has a very specific view of what manliness exactly is. When other character's views clash with his own ideals, he reacts, violently in most cases. Another character, Marco, demonstrates masculine characteristics and makes Eddie feel threatened, these connect the ideas of manliness, hostility and aggression. I will look at this particular area, and others later in the essay. The play, itself, is set in the Red Hook, slum area of Brooklyn, New York during the 1950s. It focuses around the immigration of Italian people, searching for the American Dream, however many if these 'dreams' were shattered with the tragedy and poverty that befell the people of that area. The area of Red Hook is also renowned for its infamous gangsters such as Al Capone, John Torrio and Frankie Yale. Another character in the play, Alfieri, plays a similar part to a chorus, similar to ones in Greek plays, narrating the play and commenting on events; he also plays a part in the play as a lawyer and a family friend. He is essential to the structure of the play as he opens and closes it and at other times moves th... ...get it, Catherine." Women in this era, were forced into these roles, they had few rights and were treated poorly. I believe that the play is well written and it was a success. The author had spent a number of years in these conditions and knew what it felt like for these people. The characters in the play were well formed and each person was totally independent from the others. However at the end of the play, just before Marco stabs Eddie, there is little suspension, leaving much to be desired for the ending. The play does also relate to many of today's issues. People are still quite homophobic (however homosexuals are becoming more and more integrated into today's society) and due to large amounts of immigrants coming into the country people of Britain are becoming more xenophobic towards those societies. Much in the same way as the era Eddie lived in.

Us101 Week3 Effective Study Habits

University of Phoenix Material Effective Study Habits Worksheet Review Phoenix Career Plan results of Career Plan Building Activity: Work Culture Preference, respond to the following in 50 to 100 words each: 1. Describe your ideal study environment. My ideal study environment would be a nice quiet place with no Distractions like: my kids asking me to do something for them every 5 minutes or a place with no white noise like a fan or the air pump in my fish tank. My ideal study environment would have a comfy chair with lumbar support a quiet temperature controlled room and the proper lighting for reduce visual stress. . List some of the distractions that might hinder your study progress or your performance in an online classroom. Distractions that hinder my study progress and or performance are: having to get up in the middle of studying to get somebody a drink, clean my house or if an uninvited guest drops in to say ‘hi. † Two other examples would be a telemarketer calling or unexpected repairs to my home. 3. What actions can you take to manage and eliminate distractions? Some actions I could take to manage these distractions are to stay up late or get up early when everybody else is sleeping, so I get some piece and quiet.I could inspect my home daily to look for things that may require my attention and get them taken care of ahead of time. 4. How will you apply your personal learning style? How does your personal Learning style affect your study habits? I will apply my personal learning style by trying to remember the aspects of my style and how it psychologically helps me learn. I will act upon trying different methods of learning to see what really works best for me. My personal learning style affects my study habits by giving me the knowledge of how I study best, so I can use these qualities to improve my study. . List 5 effective study strategies from this week that you will use. Explain why you selected them and why they are effective strategi es for online learning. I will work on managing my study time and alerting my-self to external distractions this way I can figure out a time and area I can study with no distractions. I really haven’t been getting enough sleep and be able to keep up with my daily choirs. I need to work on a better schedule where I can get everything done that needs to be done this way I am not tired and can focus on studying.I Will work on my exercise routine so this way my body isn’t drained. â€Å"I practice Yoga 4 times a week and lug fire wood daily†. I have learned that if you are lazy and don’t exercise regularly your brain will not function to its maximum potential and to learn it needs to function at peak performance. I will make studying for class a daily choir if I get in to the routine of logging in to class and reading some of the texts everyday it will improve my study habits and wont feel like work as much as it would if I let days pass and had to catch up. . Identify one change you can make immediately to increase the effectiveness of your study habits. Explain how this will help you become more effective. One change I need to make immediately is to schedule the time I spend working on school work to a time where I have no distractions. I need to ether do it early in the morning before my kids wake up or late at night after they go to bed. The only problem is, is that by the time they are in bed my body and brain are drained because of all the choirs I have throughout the day.I am thinking that if I discipline myself to waking up an hour or two early each day this will give me enough time to keep up with my schooling. I think best in the morning so I am hoping this will work best for me. 7. How does your personal learning style relate to your ideal workplace and your personal work competencies? My personal learning style relates to my ideal workplace and my personal competencies by giving me a better understanding of how I work and le arn best. If I can study my best and work to my full potential I will be successful in my career choice. . How is understanding your ideal learning environment applicable to selecting your ideal workplace? Understanding my ideal learning environment teaches me how and when I work and learn best. When I understand how I learn best I can use the things I’ve learned to their full potential and use them in my ideal work environment. In my field of work I am constantly learning. Technology changes and advances everyday. I am always learning new things and if I find the way I learn best using my learning strategies it will help my workplace. Philip E. Nickerson

Violence in Sports - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 751 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/09/11 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? Violence in Sports Brian Thompson American Military University SPMT601 Pamela J. Wojnar Abstract Sports and violence are complimentary to one another. In some sports, violence is merely a byproduct of the competition. In other sports violence is expected. Certain sports require a predisposition toward violence to be successful while others encourage an over-conformity to the norm with regard to violence. The more violent the athlete plays, the better for him and his team. Violent behavior is not limited to the players on field. Fans and spectators can fill a role when it comes to violent behavior. Although it is not expected as it is among the players, fans will engage in violence as a way of expressing, or reacting, to their emotional involvement with the sport. 1. On-the-field violence is related to a number of things including over-conformity to the norms of the sport ethic, commercialization, and masculinity. Which of these factors accounts most for the level of brutal body contact that occurs in professional football in the United States? Explain your choice. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Violence in Sports" essay for you Create order Choice: Over-conformity to the norms of the sport ethic is the best choice. Explanation: The reason is that there are certain expectations of competition especially in contact sports such as pro football. To survive and excel in such a physical game as pro football the athletes must maintain over-conform to a certain extent. They must play the game in such a way that they maximize their earning potential. The average life span for a pro player is around 3 years. For an athlete to secure lifelong financial security they must play with a level of physicality that warrants their need to the team. This is a minimum expectation not taking into account other factors such as athleticism and execution of techniques. 2. After reading a report of a male athlete who has assaulted a woman, one of your friends says, â€Å"Playing sports causes men to be violent. † She knows you are taking a course on the sociology of sport, and she wants you to respond to her conclusion. What do you say? Marv Levy, former head coach in the NFL, once said, â€Å"Football doesn’t build character, it reveals character. Much like what is discussed in the textbook of the correlation between success on and off the field is sometimes more related to the fact that the athletes were driven individuals before they played sports, violence is also something that falls into this category. Its is within human nature to inflict pain on others, especially when we compete for the same resources. The boundaries of society suppress the action of this drive to hurt. That is a good thing of course. The state ment â€Å"playing sports causes men to be violent† is not accurate. I believe that men with a more natural tendency toward violence play sports. Sports, especially contact sports, are an outlet for aggressive individuals. Aggressiveness and physicality are both traits that coaches and organizations look for in athletes that play contact sports. So with that being said the tendency toward being violent is apparent before the person ever plays. 3. You are the new principal of a school that is hosting a game between your #1 ranked football team and the #2 ranked team in your division. There is a deep, longstanding rivalry between the schools and a history of player and spectator violence during games. After reading Ch. , what measures would you take to control player and spectator violence on and off the field? There would definitely be a meeting among the coaches involved with our team to clearly explain expectations of the players and staff. Secondly I would personally meet with the athletes to spell out exactly what expect from them in terms of conduct. Letters and phone calls would be made to the parents of the student body letting them know that any conduct that is deemed out of order would be handled by the police officers on duty at the game and the school would bring charges against them. I would also have hand outs ready for fans as they enter the stadium outlining our procedure for those that violate orderly conduct policies. As a principal, I would attempt to meet with the principal of the other school and ask him to make comparable steps to help ensure the safety of everyone involved. Lastly I would do all I could to make the presence of security personnel such as faculty, staff, and police officers, visible for all to see. Hopefully we could avert any trouble before it happens.