ssess the nature and extent of the impact of Anglo-Scottish union during the period 1603-1685?
The Union with Scotland and England happened when in 1603 queen Elizabeth the last passed away and James VI replaced her in the throne and became a king of Scotland. Before the two kingdoms emerged, there were several important factors explaining why that happened. The king of England, Henry VII was afraid of war with Spain or France, therefore, he thought that his daughters Margaret Tudor marriage with King James VII would be a good idea. In 1603 James VII and Margaret Tudor got married and James VII became the King of Scotland and England. In fact, James VII had a secret agreement with chief minister Sir Robert Cecil, who helped him with succession
…show more content…
The major problem was that both, England and Scotland did not want the union with each other. However, Scottish Protestants saw a Union as a good thing, because they thought, that the Union would strengthen the resistance against Catholics and King James could defend Protestants in Europe more easily as the Queen Elizabeth failed to do it.
The Union also brought some good events as well. The war in Ireland and in Spain was finally over and the peace was pursued. A peace with Spain was also a good diplomatic move, which went to benefit of Scotland, because it made a major impact on Scotland’s economy. King James was trying to develop diplomatic relationship with Spain as it was its major goal and he considered himself as one of the biggest diplomats in Europe. As a scholar William Ferguson claims, James VI efforts to unite England and Scotland have failed because both of them stayed with the same general laws, administration and rules of succession of their own. He also says that the Union of Crowns was clearly dynastic with features of feudalism and that made an impact on Renaissance Europe at that time. The Union shared the same language, same monarch and
…show more content…
The problem was raised that England and Scotland could no longer solve national issues. As W. Ferguson mentions, England and Scotland were completely different nations with different economic, social and institutional perception. Scots situation in England was tough even before the Union of Crowns. Even when they had common laws, they could not own or inherit land. Therefore, even though the Union of Crowns was dynastic, the political actions were not in Scotland’s favor. Scotland was excluded from foreign policy making processes and its interests were under England’s will. It was useful for England, because it ensured its land security. And King James VI was not very concerned about it. In 1607 he made a speech in English Parliament saying that he was bragging about ruling Scotland with his pen unlike the others do it with a sword. According to W. Ferguson it was not a very tactic move to brag about his autocratic ways of ruling Scotland to, as W. Ferguson calls, a suspicious English Parliament, because English people were against the absolutism because it was identified as Counter – Reformation. He also was considered as an absolute in Scotland and
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
Another source of opposition to Charles’ personal rule was that of the parliament and Charles’ financial expenditure. Charles’ personal rule lasted 11 long years in which he didn’t call parliament for any money or subsidies. To finance his problems, he used his position of power as king to call upon favours and rules that enabled him to gain money without calling parliament. One of these was selling titles. Distraint of Knighthood. This was where men who owned estates worth £40 per annum were in theory supposed to present them to be knighted at a new King’s coronation. Charles thus fined people for not doing so even though the practice had...
Finally, the Post-Revisionist historians believe that the relationship between Elizabeth and her parliaments was one of “cooperation and consent” in some cases, and “conflict and consent” in others. In cases where they believed that there was conflict, they believe that it came from the Privy Council. In order to answer the question, the different schools of thought need to be taken into account, along with the events that back these views up, and the relationships at the individual parliaments need to be assessed, e.g. Religion, succession, free speech, and the monopolies parliaments. Firstly, take religion, which was discussed at the session in 1559. It can be argued that at this individual... ...
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
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
They wanted to remain governed by Britain. So the people in the Northern Counties (Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone) remained under British rule while the Southern Counties formed the Republic of Ireland. Shortly after the formation of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, hostilities pushed these two countries to the brink of civil war. This was prevented by the start of World War I. English persecution of the Irish people is one cause of the tensions in Northern Ireland. Before 1793, Irish Catholics were persecuted by British law.
2. Religious fears over James I and Charles I further contributed to the tensions between Parliament and the monarchy because it led to wariness between Parliament and the monarch through the disagreements they had. James rarely called Parliament to help him while he was the monarch. In 1604, at the Hampton Court Conference, James rejected the Puritans, who wanted to eliminate the hierarchical episcopal system of Church governance and replace it with a more representative Presbyterian form, and he made it clear that he wanted to strengthen the Anglican episcopacy instead. He
Scottish devolution, with its advantages and disadvantages, is the best example of how great political and social changes can be achieved not through bloody revolution but with the patience, intelligence and hard work of a united country but is still a work in progress.
How far were the events in Scotland responsible for the failure of Charles I’s Personal Rule?
In 1642, King Charles raised his royal standard in Nottingham, marking the beginning of the English Civil War. The next ten years saw the Cavaliers (supporters of the King) and the Roundheads (supporters of the parliament) engaged in a vicious battle for their respective leaders with the Roundheads ultimately victorious. This essay will attempt to explain why civil war broke out in England while summarizing the story behind the antagonism of the two parties.
Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s
The period leading up to the Civil War was a period of great change. In 1603, James I was crowned king and this was the first time that England, Scotland and Ireland all had the same monarch. These were very different countries in terms of their main religion. In the past, these religious divisions had resulted in the Gunpowder Plot (1605). In addition, there were many tensions between Parliament and Charles’ predecessor king James I. During James I’s reign, the king suspended Parliament for 10 years between 1611 and 1621. This did not leave a good state of affairs for his son Charles I to inherit when he was crowned king in 1625.
In 1603 the Scottish and English monarchies were united and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarchy of the United Kingdom was deprived of the decision-making privilege they once had. For the purpose of this essay, I intend to examine the many different arguments both for and against the British monarchy being abolished. Proponents argue strongly that the monarchy symbolises all that is British throughout Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. However, contrary to this, the monarchy receives exorbitant financial aid from the British taxpayers to maintain the monarchy. Does the monarchy have a place in the twenty first century?
While he did do many detastable things, he did them because he was a loyal Scottsman and family man. He wanted the best for Scotland. He believed that Scotland deserved the best and that the best was him. When he realized that his family line would not carry on he did his best, or what he thought was best, to continue it. His wife did nothing to discourage these bad ideas, infact, she encouraged them.
In their book, Smith and Wistrich state that Britain sensed a problem in the identity once there has been devolution of power to Scotland and Wales in 1998 (2009). It maybe true that Scots and Welsh feel more attached to their own na...