Monstrous Monarchs of England
England has had it’s fair share of horrible rulers from Richard the third to William the conqueror. The country has had its rulers of murderers, brats, and playboys that have all ruined a piece of England's monarch. Maybe not as worse as the rest but certainly on many peoples list of worst rulers is James the second. He definitely contributed his fair share of mistakes to ruin England during his time of rule. First we’ll look at James family. His father, Charles the first, wasn't a great role model. All three of his kingdoms rebelled against him and killed him. The throne went to Charles the second, James’ older brother. According to John P.Kenyon in a article on Britanica during the English Civil Wars James
…show more content…
When it was being read out in church, no shocker, Bishops started to speak out. On June 30th 1688, all seven Bishops were acquitted and boom the King was starting to crumple (“James II”).
On the same day that the seven Bishops were acquitted, William of Orange was invited into the picture. The most influential men in the kingdom were getting scared that another civil war would happen under the rule of a Catholic monarch. This is where James starts to lose control.
William the Orange made it clear that he was going to invade, and something magical happened. Suddenly James reversed many of the policies he had tried to enforce. But this didn't seem to put a damper on James. With William advancing on London James only advanced as far as Salisbury. He realized his support that was backing him had dwindled. James who was stuck in a hard place sent his wife and son to France, and like any good ruler he fled his country. William had caught him before he got too far and being the nice guy he is even let James get away with a second successful
…show more content…
The attempt he made to reclaim his throne was pointless and he gave up after his defeat. It is clear that their could have been a better ruler than James, he wasn't as horrible as some but he was not made out to be a ruler which seemed to run in his family. With every problem that came about he handled it the wrong way. He was horrible at having a strategy and he only wanted Parliament out of power. He wanted his religion to take over the country and he used his power to put in place the people who would only benefit him.
He was more honest and sincere than Charles II, more genuinely patriotic in his foreign policy, and more consistent in his religious attitude (“King James II”). While Charles Ⅱleft James with a manageable throne to deal with James managed to follow in the footsteps of his father.
Works Cited
Kenyon, John P. "James II (king of Great Britain)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 27 July 2014
"Spartacus Educational." Spartacus Educational. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2014. <http://spartacus-educational.com/STUjames2.htm>.
"History of King James II of England." History of King James II of England. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2014. <http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/kingjames_jc.html>.
"James II." James II. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 July 2014.
King James II." King James II. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 July
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991.
The Elizabethan Deliverance - Arthur Bryant Reformation and Revolution 1558-1660 - Robert Ashton Elizabeth and her Parliaments - J.E. Neales Elizabeth and her Reign - Richard Salter Elizabeth I and religion 1558-1603 - Susan Doran Tudor England - John Guy Elizabeth I - David Starkey
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
Unknown, to James at this point he did not realize that he was having a problem with a psychological theory called behaviorism. Now this theory is one that is saying human behavior is developed through learning experiences which in this case would apply to James. His behavior as an adult was reflected by the way he was treated as a kid by his father and mother because they fought all the time. They never truly paid any attention to him, which in terms taught him how to stay out of their way and learn how to steal and burglarize places without getting caught. Therefore, within the psychological theory of behaviorism Behaviorists saw crime as something that is a learned response to life’s situations such as James situation which led him to a life of crime because of his parents. Although, he was never truly mistreated, he did not receive his father attention due to the fact of the way his father was treated as a child growing up an abusive household. Therefore, he did not want to place his son in the same situation. There is also the fact that James could be suffering from the psychodynamic theory which says that a person’s personality can be controlled by their unconscious mental process and that is grounded in them in early childhood. These entire things such as the id, ego, and superego
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
He knew that his mother would not be worrying about these things if he was there to look after the family and everything else. Throughout the rest of the story, there are many other instances where James's shows his maturity--from walking in the bitter cold, to the confrontation between his mother and the pimp in the café. Being without, has taught James to be appreciative. More importantly, he has learned that the decisions he makes affect not only him, but everyone around him.
James VI & I's Desire to Create a Perfect Union Between Scotland and England After succeeding the English thrown in 1603, James VI & I of Scotland and England aimed to create the 'perfect union'. In 1604 he proclaimed himself king of Britain and attempted full unification of the nations. This was to involve uniting the Scottish and English parliaments, the church and the legal systems. It also included free trade, repeal of hostile laws and the renewal of borders.
James further angered the Catholic population when he ordered Catholic priests to leave England. By 1605 tension was beginning to form, and people were plotting to remove the king. Trouble and rebellion grew among some Catholics, and they put together a plan to remove King James from the throne. The plotters wanted to kill James and put his daughter Elizabeth on the throne. (Trueman) Under advice from those in his inner circle, such as his spy expert, Sir Robert Cecil, and in an attempt to please more extreme Protestants such as the Puritans, James once again increased punishment on those who still practiced the Catholic religion. Anger grew to the point that some Catholics were willing to take extreme measures, and they had support from other Catholic royalty throughout other areas of Europe. At least two attacks against King James had already "failed by when a group of men met at a London inn to discuss a new strategy" (Ford). They talked of a new strategy to lead a plot to kill not only the King of England, but also all m...
...k up the dark cliff that he had been forcefully pulled into. He persevered to forgive himself for his actions and to be their for his son when he was needed. James went through the fiery depths of hell and should not be blamed as the one who is guilty but sympathized with as the victim.
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.
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
We have learned our own individual personality can drive our sense of direction. The choices James made during his childhood where not his fought, he did not have the parental guidance during his developmental stage. Amazingly, he conquered all to obstacles to become successful.
They both wanted more power than the other. If Charles had not held such a great belief in ‘the divine right of kings’, he might have been able to avoid a lot of the tensions which built up to and resulted in the civil war. Charles’ personality played a part and showed his opponents that he was arrogant and had little understanding or sympathy for the fears and aspirations of his people. Ultimately, Charles lacked many of the personal qualities needed to be a successful monarch. Finally, he was not good at developing good relationships with and support amongst the politicians and noblemen he needed to rule the country
James was an authoritarian parent. He was controlling, in-charge and no one questioned him. He would play the role of the doting father. When his children made mistakes, he made a point to criticize them. He often compared them to other kids that he felt were “more perfect.” When his often unspoken expectations were not met he would yell and scream striking fear into his entire family. “He’s not a warm, fuzzy kind of guy, and he’s not going to inspire feelings of intimacy. But when his system works, he can boast about one thing: His recruits tend to obey” (Dewar).