No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis explores the late-Henrican polity through the archive and perspective of William Paget, Henry VIII's secretary at the end of his reign. Paget's papers as secretary (1543-1547), that form the basis of the thesis, are an extensive, unique and relatively under-used source. From this starting-point Paget's role as secretary is explored and he is revealed as the personal servant of the king, whose natural environment was the court. As such he was an influential source of counsel and perhaps the key patronage-broker at court. In this context Paget also had a significant influence over the operation of the dry stamp at the end of the reign. Equally, Paget's role in shaping the function of the secretary and his relations with the recently formed privy council was of considerable importance, providing the template for later Tudor secretaries. Diplomacy in the uncertain world of the 1540s was one of Paget's primary concerns and his priorities can be seen as trying to provide security and stability for the realm. This is revealed not only in his 'Consultation' of August 1546 but also in his diplomacy with the French, the Schmalkaldic League and the Papacy. In this he sometimes found himself at odds with the king and leading a privy council united in a desire for peace. Politically Paget has traditionally been cast as an ambitious politique, the 'master of practices' and part of the earl of Hertford's reform party. Whilst acknowledging Paget's close relations with Hertford this thesis questions the factional interpretation of the last years of the reign and argues that the predominant concern of Paget and his fellow privy councillors was a peaceful succession in which unanimity rather than conflict was the key-note.

'William Cecil and the British succession crisis of the 1560s' reconsiders the nature of the early Elizabethan polity and Cecil's place in it. Conventional historiography maintains that as principal secretary Cecil was a moderate, cautious, and religiously neutral politician, content to follow Elizabeth I's direction in policy. More recently, Professors Patrick Collinson and John Guy have challenged this interpretation of the Elizabethan polity. Based on a thorough survey of the archives, my thesis explores Cecil's political creed in the 1560s. Three years of research have helped to paint a radically different picture of Cecil to the one traditionally represented: he was a councillor prepared to redefine his relationship with a monarch who refused to abide by the rules of monarchy and select a successor. The eight chapters of the thesis blend two complementary themes. First, that Elizabethan in the 1560s experienced a British succession crisis and not, as Professor Collinson has maintained, an English domestic succession crisis. And second, that the political situation in Britain and Europe - the determination of the continental catholic powers to use Mary Stuart's claim to the English throne as a weapon against protestant England - had a profound impact on the mentality of protestant Englishmen and debate in England. It persuaded Cecil to press for a pre-emptive strike against the French in Scotland (chapter two), which he defended by appealing to the feudal-imperial power of the English monarch; he used the same argument to justify the 'first trial' of Mary Stuart in 1568 (chapter seven). In this British context, Elizabeth's refusal to secure England's future led to parliamentary action in 1563 and a Cecil plan for interregnum by privy council in the event of Elizabeth's death, twenty-two years before its re-emergence in 1585 (chapter four). The régime could not find a diplomatic solution to the marriage between Mary and Lord Darnley in 1565 (chapter five): parliament debated the succession in 1566 and Cecil disobeyed the queen by pressing for a settlement (chapter six). Cecil's approach to the crisis was innovative, and his political creed is profoundly important to any assessment of politics in Elizabeth I's reign.

Since 2009, the European Union has faced the worst economic crisis of its history. Due to the devastating impact of the Eurozone crisis on their economies, European countries realized the need to deepen the integration. Without a fiscal union, the Monetary Union would always be prone to economic crises. However, the efforts to reinforce the Union’s economy have been hampered by the UK due to its obsession with national sovereignty and lack of European ideals. In opposing further integration, the UK officials have started to speak out about the probability of leaving the EU. The purpose of this paper is to present benefits and challenges of Britain’s EU membership and to assess the consequences of leaving the Union both for the UK and for the EU. This study utilizes Power Transition theory to analyze British impact on European integration. With the perspective of this theory, the UK is defined as a dissatisfied partner. By applying the conflict– cooperation model of Brian Efird, Jacek Kugler and Gaspare Genna, the effect of the UK’s dissatisfaction is empirically portrayed. The empirical findings of the conflict– integration model clearly show that Britain’s dissatisfaction has a negative impact on European integration and jeopardizes the future of the Union. Power Transitions analysis indicates that the UK would become an insignificant actor in the international system and lose the opportunity for the Union’s leadership if it leaves the EU. On the other hand, although Britain’s departure would be a significant loss in terms of capability, economic coherence is more important for the EU. Without enough commitment for the Union, increasing the level of integration with the UK would raise the probability of conflict with the integration process in the future.

The Scots MPs of the eighteenth century have traditionally been portrayed in a negative light. In a century once noted for electoral corruption and the abuses of patronage, they were seen by contemporaries and later writers as among the worst examples of their kind: greedy, self-seeking, unprincipled ‘tools of administration’ whose votes could be bought with the offer of places and pensions. Lewis Namier’s seminal work exposing the cynical approach to politics of MPs generally, sparked a backlash which has produced a more balanced evaluation of English politics. Strangely, although Namier exonerated the Scots MPs from the worst of the charges against them, his less judgmental verdicts are found only sporadically in more recent writing, while the older viewpoint is still repeated by some historians. There is no modern study of the eighteenth-century Scots MPs, a situation which this research proposes to remedy, by examining the group of MPs who represented Scotland at Westminster between 1754 and 1784. It re-assesses the extent to which the original criticisms are merited, but also widens the scope by examining the contribution made by Scotland’s MPs, to British and Scottish political life in the later part of the eighteenth century. A study of the social make-up and the careers of this particular cohort provides the backdrop for the two main themes: the participation of Scots MPs in the legislative process, and their effectiveness as representatives of Scottish interests at Westminster. Existing biographical information has been supplemented by an examination of Parliamentary Papers, debates, and personal correspondence to enable further analysis of attitudes, in particular with regard to politics and political mores. The research explores issues of motivation, asking questions about allegiance, identity, perceptions of government, and how conflicts of interest were resolved, before presenting a conclusion which aims to offer a revised, broader, but more nuanced, assessment of this much-criticised group, based on more recent approaches to interpretation of the period.

No description available.