Foreign Issues of Major Significance and James I's Reign
"James hated war", says Farmer. He always pursued a peaceful foreign
policy and envisaged himself as a negotiator between hostile European
powers. He demonstrated his even-handedness by marrying his daughter
to a protestant German prince - Frederick of the Palatinate - and
pursuing a Spanish Catholic marriage for his son, Henry. After Henry
died in 1612 he tried to marry his next son Charles to the Spanish
princess, however this marriage was not to be.
In 1618, the Thirty Years War broke out in Europe. The Catholic
southern German states fought against the Protestant northern German
states and each side had help from outside powers - the Catholics from
Spain and the Protestants from Sweden and France. As Protector of the
Protestant faith, it was James' duty to fight for the Protestants, but
this would have brought him into direct conflict with the Spanish and
almost certainly would have destroyed any chance of Charles' marriage
to Isabella, the Spanish princess. James managed to stay out of the
war until 1624 after Charles had travelled to Spain to meet Isabella
and been fobbed off by the Spanish Court, which Charles took as a
personal insult.
Foreign issues were of great importance to the reign of James after
1618 but less so before then. Before 1618, the only foreign policy
that was significant was the proposed marriage of Charles to Isabella.
After the outbreak of the Thirty Years War however all that changed.
James was torn between rival sides but still clung to his hopes of
bridging the gap between them. England's entry to the war had great
repercussions. James ha...
... middle of paper ...
...in 1618. Also of significance was Charles' marriage to
Henrietta Maria, the French princess. She was Catholic and demanded
the right to free worship, which disgusted the populace.
It is hard to say which issue was most significant as they are all
inextricably linked. Religious issues dictated foreign policy; finance
was dependant on Parliament and James' ambitious foreign policies were
dependant on good finances. At the time, foreign issues were of the
highest importance. These issues affected the King's finances and the
calling of Parliaments. But they had little lasting effect after the
war ended. On the other hand parliamentary issues were to play a very
significant role in the coming decades and the debate over what
Parliament's fundamental rights and duties are, continued for many
years after the death of James.
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
The first of these is Religion. Charles came under attack from, in simple terms, the Protestants and the Catholics. He had this attack on him for many different reasons. He was resented by the Catholics, because he was a protestant. To be more precise, he was an Arminian, which was a sector from the protestant side of Christianity. On the other side of the spectrum, he is resented by the puritans, as they see him as too close in his religious views to Catholicism. Furthermore, he is disliked by the puritans as he put restrictions on their preaching and themselves. The puritans were a well organised opposition to Personal rule. The top puritans, linked through family and friends, organised a network of potential opposition to the king and his personal rule. This ‘Godly party’ as they became known, was made up of gentry, traders, lawyers and even lords. This group of powerful and extremely influential people was the most well organised opposition to Charles’ personal rule.
Elizabeth’s Relationship With Her Parliaments Over the years, there has been much debate amongst historians Orthodox, Revisionist and Post – Revisionist, as to whether the relationship between Elizabeth and her parliaments was one of “conflict and contest,” or of “cooperation and consent”. Most of the different schools of thought agree on the facts, but disagree in their interpretations of the relationship. In general, taking into account all of the parliaments that took place throughout Elizabeth’s reign, the contemporary historians believe that Elizabeth’s relationship with her parliaments was one of “cooperation and consent.” The orthodox historians believe that Elizabeth’s relationship with her parliaments was one of “conflict and contest” and that it came from the puritan choir in the House of Commons. The revisionist historians believe that there was a relationship of “cooperation and consent”.
She had grown up as a 'committed and conventionally pious Protestant' and these views obviously effected the way she ran her household and country, and consequently influenced her decisions over the religious settlement. Another evident influence was the views of the Privy Council and of her chief councillor, William Cecil. It has been argued that their opinions forced Elizabeth into a more protestant settlement that she originally desired. There are also many debates over the role of parliament and how their personal views dictated the outcome of the settlement. In particular, historians argue about whether the Commons or the Lords shaped the religious settlement to a greater degree.
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
He began his career as Richelieu’s closest friend, adviser, and negotiator in 1612. Although he aided Richelieu in domestic affairs including military action against rebellious Huguenots Father Joseph’s signal achievement was the successful implementation of Richelieu’s anti-Habsburg foreign policy. During the Thirty Years’ War, Father Joseph promoted Richelieu’s strategy of keeping the Protestant king of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, in the field against the Catholic Habsburgs. But for the Father Joseph the most compelling project was a pan-European crusade against the Turks.
war often, for the sake of his country, but when he did he put in a
During the rule of King Charles I, the Parliament had limited powers, and were not entitled to govern independently as a Parliament should. This is shown through King Charles’ power to veto their decisions, and his dissolving of the Parliament three times between 1625-1629. Consequently, the Parliament became frustrated with their minute role, and responded in attempt to control the King’s power, to maintain their control. This is clearly depicted in their refusal to grant tax raising and revenue for Charles’ increased expenditure, including the abolishment of the ‘ship tax’ which had been previously collected illegally. Following on from this was the enactment of legislation through the Petition of Right in 1928, after MP’s had been called back by Charles in his third parliament. The Petition of Right demanded that Charles could not imprison anyone without being found guilty in a court of law, that no tax could be implemented without Parliamentary consent, and soldiers could not be billeted against their will. Furthermore, the Parliament also abolished the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber, disallowing for Charles to continue the arbitrary punishment of opposers to his reforms. The Parliament’s pressure on Charles through these reforms was largely driven by
Her first order of business was to eliminate religious unrest. Elizabeth lacked the fanaticism of her siblings, Edward VI favored Protestant radicalism, Mary I, conservative Catholicism, which enabled her to devise a compromise that,basically, reinstated Henrician reforms. She was, however, compelled to take a stronger Protestant stance for two reasons: the machinations of Mary Queen of Scots and persecution of continental Protestants by the two strongholds of Orthodox Catholicism, Spain and France. The situation with Mary Queen of Scots was most vexing to Elizabeth. Mary, in Elizabeth's custody beginning in 1568 (for her own protection from radical Protestants and disgruntled Scots), gain...
King William's War was a war fought in England over religious differences between the English and French. In the colonies, however, it was fought over not only religious differences but also over jealousies concerning fisheries and the fur trade in the St. Lawrence area. Both the English and the French knew that the Indians of the area would play a large part in the war, whichever side they took...
War, war never changes. All parties involved in war do it for one reason and one reason alone, power. This struggle for power is no different in the case of The Thirty Years’ War. Starting in Bohemia in 1618 as a regional conflict with the Hapsburg Empire, many parties were involved in the conflict. The Catholic Church was one such party struggling with the religious conflict of the Reformation. Other Nations such as France, England, Sweden, and Spain were involved as well and played a major role in obtaining greater power through the use of political actions under the guise of religion.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth the two dominant faiths in Europe was Protestant and the Catholic. Both considered each other's faith as heresy against the true form of practicing Christianity. Therefore both wanted the cease of existence of each other. War would have been inevitable if both sides were able to accept each other and live in a compromised state. However, I don’t believe this would have been possible especially not back then. Since people tend to categorize each other based on different characteristics, in this case its faith. Neither sides would be able to consider each other as equals. The winning of the battles was not based on whose practice of religion is the right way, it was based on who had more weapons or people to fight on their side. In a personal perspective I don’t understand the purpose of the war. The Protestant and the Catholic both come from Christianity. They do have some differences in their rituals and practices however, they are still the same faith. I thought the war was originally because of the Pope or the vatican because the existence of the protestant is a threat to the Papal. Since they don't hold allegion to the Pope. Would it be possible that the Papal is what caused Catholic to be against the Protestant faith so much. I believe the protestant also had people on their side to enforce the hatred such as Calvin toward the
The French and Indian War changed the economic, political, and ideological relations between Great Britain and the American colonies in many ways. Politically the colonist felt like they were deprived of representation, when Great Britain imposed unfair taxation without any say. Economically, many colonist were infuriated with the British because the British were starving them of many resources and making high taxes and tariffs. Ideologically, it brought feelings of discontent towards Britain. Boycotts during the war opened the eyes of the colonist. It showed them they had the ability to make a change and proved that they could unite together. The colonist no longer viewed Great Britain as the great mother country, but as a tyrant who looked to feed on the American colonies new sense of life.
There was tremendous competition between European states for power and wealth. England wanted to limit France in the new world and as time went on, the conflict grew and the French and English colonies got involved as well as the Spanish ones. Both King Williams’s war and Queen Anne’s War ended in a negotiated peace and had little effect on the colonies, but both had accompanying wars in Europe. King William’s was the War of the League of Augsburg in Europe and Queen Anne’s War was the War of the Spanish Succession in Europe. In the eighteenth century, the European states depended on borrowing to fund their wars, but the English were the first not to pay off the debt when the war was over. The English instead just paid the interest on the debt, but as the debt
(Bbc-History-VI) the French declared war. Edward was suffering from tuberculosis and would not live long. Lady Jane was queen only for few days than Mary took the throne. (Bbc-History-VI)