1. King James I of England can be described as a forceful, independent and corrupt monarch. As a result of dealing with Puritans, who wanted to get rid of the hierarchical episcopal system of Church governance and replace it with a more representative Presbyterian form that is like the one the Calvinists have, James displayed his forcefulness. At the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, James rejected the Puritans and clearly stated that he wanted to reinforce the Anglican episcopacy. Despite the tensions his actions may have caused, James did what he believed to be right, instead of compromising and possibly coming up with an agreement. James was independent because he didn’t want Parliament to help him, so he seldom asked for their assistance. …show more content…
He appointed the people he liked rather than people who were suited for the job. One of these favorites that were not suitable was the Duke of Buckingham, who controlled royal patronage and even sold titles to the highest bidders. This cheapened the rank of the nobility, who were angered by this practice. Therefore, King James I of England can be described as a forceful, independent and corrupt monarch because of the decisions he made regarding the puritans, his strong belief in the divine right of kings and his urge to pick favorites in his royal court.
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
…show more content…
England changed under Cromwell because he made it a Puritan Republic that he controlled. Cromwell and his parliamentary army were disciplined and strong, so it was easy for them to get rid of the monarchy and take control. When they defeated King Charles’ militarily, in 1649, they had Charles executed and then got rid of the monarchy, the House of Lords, and Anglican Church. England became a Puritan republic that Cromwell dominated. Then, in 1653, when the House of Commons wanted to split his army, he reacted by disbanding Parliament and ruled as Lord Protector. He ruled harshly and focused mainly on maintaining Puritan conformity in the place of political liberty. People hated his harsh rule and so, when he died in 1658, people were willing to restore the Anglican Church and the monarchy. Therefore, England changed under Cromwell because he made it a Puritan Republic that he harshly
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.
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... ...
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
Cromwell initiated these changes to the faith, but Henry's Catholic faith ensured these changes were not too radical and chantries were still allowed to pray for souls in purgatory. Although Henry remained a Catholic, the end of papal power was signified in his becoming the head of the Church of England. However, with such movements that shook the foundations of England's faith, why was there so little opposition to the Henrician reformation? Perhaps on of the greatest tactics employed by the crown to prevent opposition was provoking fear amongst those who were likely to oppose the reformation. Henry had to start from the top, and therefore started by controlling parliament.
These two opposing religions had their differences be known be the other side and would fight for their ideas to be the ones all to follow. Conrad Russel states in his book The Causes of the English Civil War, that England “was a society with several religions, while still remaining a society with a code of values and a political system which were only designed to be workable with one”. Inside the Church of England was essentially two churches, Protestant and Catholic. Both sides were determined that their religion was going to be the one in the church and not the one outside looking in. Both sides wanted to control the authoritative powerhouse of England and would do anything to have the Church of England become the church of their religion. However, religious differences did not just occur between the citizens, it also occurred between King Charles I and Parliament. First off let’s look at King Charles himself. Charles was a very religious monarch who liked his worship to be High Anglican. He also believed the hierarchy of priests and bishops was very important, which alarmed Parliament because they believed that King Charles was leaning towards the idea of Catholicism in England. King Charles’ form of worship was seen by the Puritan faith as a form of popery. This upset them because they wanted a pure worship without icons or bishops. To clarify, popery is the doctrines, practices, and ceremonies associated with the pope or the papal system; Roman Catholicism. Charles also wanted to support William Laud who was the leader of the High Church Anglican Party because they had recently became prominent. Parliament strongly disagreed with the King’s decision because they feared that Laud would promote Roman Catholicism ideas and
James II of England was the first king to succeed to the kingdoms of both England and Scotland and to be crowned King of both. He was also known as the Duke of York, the Duke of Albany, and the honorary Duke of Normandy; a title that was never to be held again by an English monarch. He was called Lord High Admiral as he commanded the English navy in the Anglo- Dutch war, which resulted in a new English city renamed for him (New York). He became King of England on February 6, 1685 and remained so until he fled to France, escaping the hatred of his countrymen and the threats of his son-in-law on December 11, 1688. He was crowned King of Scotland 11 weeks after his coronation in England on April 23, 1685 and continued ruling over Ireland, even after his deposition, until July 1, 1690 when he was defeated by William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne. Despite his numerous titles and seemingly unlimited influence, his views concerning God, his unpleasant personality, and his outdated views on government would lead to the reconstruction of the English government and a removal of a second monarch, less than 100 years after the removal of Charles I. It’s an impressive resume for a not so impressive man.
Religious and territorial conflicts between states led to almost continuous warfare. So it is no surprise that Charles I’s troubles began early in his reign in 1625 when he declared war on Spain. To raise funds for his army and support the war, Charles asked Parliament for money. However, since he answered only to God he felt he was under no obligation to share with Parliament what he hoped to achieve or the expected costs of the war. As a result, Parliament denied the King the ability to increase taxes. To get around this the King dissolved Parliament and unilaterally imposed measures to raise money for his army. “Two of the measures that were extremely unpopular were the forced loan and ship money”( Grv, Jonathan Dewald). Throughout his reign Charles continued to engage in war which required additional funds that Parliament refused to grant him. Between 1625 and 1629 Charles summoned and dismissed Parliament three times. In every case, Charles failed to achieve what he needed from Parliament so finally in 1639 Charles indefinitely suspended Parliament and no Parliament was active for the next eleven
...h the freedom to choose religion), and the Presbyterians (who wanted a strict Calvinist system controlled by a strong central power). The Independents dominated the war with their New Model Army, and became an unstoppable force in England. They were led by the influential and militant Oliver Cromwell (whose nickname became "Lord Protector")of the House of Commons, and captured Charles, removed the House of Lords and the Presbyterians from Parliament, and executed the "holy anointed."
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
Oliver Cromwell was a prominent leader during the civil war. Cromwell played a leading role in capturing Charles I to trial and execution. During the civil war, Cromwell’s military abilities commit highly to the parliamentary victory which made him appointed as the new model army leader. Also, the parliaments determined that he would end the civil war as the powerful man in England. In the selection, Edmund Ludlow criticize about the new models of government. Cromwell dislikes the idea of new models of government because he feel the new models of government would destroy the power. Also, Ludlow criticizes about Cromwell’s power is being abused too much, so he feels that the nation should governed by its own. Cromwell’s responded that the government
One of the key factors that led to the civil war was the contrasting beliefs of King Charles and the parliament. The monarchy believed in the divine rights of kings, explained by Fisher (1994, p335) as a biblically-based belief that the king or queen's authority comes directly from God and that he is not subjected to the demands of the people. On the other hand, the parliament had a strong democratic stance and though they respected and recognized the king's authority, they were constantly desiring and fighting for more rights to power. Although climaxing at the reign of King Charles, their antagonism stretched for centuries long before his birth and much of the power that once belonged to the monarchy had shifted over to the parliament by the time he came into power.
the Catholic Church, King John 's behavior towards the barons and lastly, England 's legal
Of all the absolute rulers in European history, Louis XIV of France was the most powerful, and the best example because of his successes, being able to continue his complete control even after failures, his ability to be able to use France’s money in any way he wanted, such as the Place of Versailles, taking away the nobles power, and his ability to delegate impotant jobs to smart yet loyal people.
The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasing effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611) , the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative. In the case of Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) the Monarch had no right to act as a judge, and in the case of the Ship Money Case (1637), although th...
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...