Eric Graham Mr. Herzog History Semester 1 January 8 Charles II of England England, a country apart of the United Kingdom, has had an organized government for hundreds of years. The current type has been the same for more than four-hundred years and has been mostly successful. The system is called a monarchy. It consists of a monarch, or king, that is chosen from the king’s close family. For example, if a man is the king, his firstborn son may become the king, and then his son may become the next king, and so on. This is what happens in most cases, but there are always exceptions and weak kings. Parliament was formed to assist the king and check his power. It can both work with the king and against him. An example of parliament working against …show more content…
Charles I was ‘forced’ to fight the Scots then, and needed money from parliament to fight them. At the same time, there was a revolt in Ireland. Parliament had the money but wanted to control the army, which started a civil war between them and Charles I over who had the right to rule. Both of them fought for years until 1645, when the battle of Naseby was won by parliament. Charles II and his family was forced to move and the war continued. “He spent the next five years [1645-1650] as a royal refugee in Jersey, France and the Netherlands” (historyearningsite.co.uk). According to BBC, “In 1646, Charles [I] surrendered to the Scots, who handed him over to parliament. He escaped to the Isle of Wight in 1647 and encouraged discontented Scots to invade.” Of course, another war began, which parliament won again, in 1647. Charles I got a trial for treason and lost; he was executed in …show more content…
The second Dutch war began and England was on its own against them. A year later in 1666, a huge fire started and burned down a lot of the buildings. The Dutch also got help in the war from Denmark and France. They attacked the Thames and a treaty was worked out. Afterwards, the group turned against the Dutch: “In 1670, Charles signed the secret treaty of Dover under which Charles would declare himself a Catholic and England would side with France against the Dutch” (royal.gov.uk). The English did not want a Catholic king, so agreeing to the treaty was a large risk because the king of France could have blackmailed Charles into anything. Charles did benefit from the treaty though as he got support from the French and had one less enemy. The extra support allowed him to keep parliament at
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.
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
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
William the Conqueror and his Patronage William I, better known as William the Conqueror, began his medieval and political career at a young age when his father left him to go on a crusade. Effectively William became the Duke of Normandy. He had to fight against other members of the Norman royalty who desired William's land and treasure. William learned at an early age that the men who ruled Europe during the middle ages were primarily interested in their own greed at the expense of all else, including the concepts chivalry and honor. He soon became a feared military commander, conquering all in Normandy who would oppose his interests.
In England, the parliament because of this need, grew to have power over the king and cause great toleration of people's
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...
In the Age of Absolutism, both England and France had strong absolute monarchies and leaders. Though Louis XIV, monarch of France, and Charles I, leader of Britain, both served as their country’s king and served in this role in different ways.
Charlemagne Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, became the undisputed ruler of Western Europe, “By the sword and the cross.” (Compton’s 346) As Western Europe was deteriorating Charlemagne was crowned the privilege of being joint king of the Franks in 768 A.D. People of Western Europe, excluding the church followers, had all but forgotten the great gifts of education and arts that they had possessed at one time. Charlemagne solidly defeated barbarians and kings in identical fashion during his reign. Using the re-establishment of education and order, Charlemagne was able to save many political rights and restore culture in Western Europe.
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
Charles Hapsburg, who later became Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, was born in the Flemish city of Ghent on February 24, 1500 (3) to Phillip the Handsome and Joanna the Mad (2). He had four sisters: Eleanor, Isabel, Mary, and Katherine. Ferdinand I was his only brother (7). His maternal grandparents were the very famous Isabel of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon who funded Columbus’s expeditions (6). His paternal grandfather was Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (7).
A new critical piece of legislature has passed the National Assembly, the King’s Veto or the Royal Sanction. The Royal Sanction is a very important article to include in the new constitution as it is one of the stepping stones to a constitutional monarchy. The main reason why having a constitutional monarchy is a good idea is because it will provide a system of checks and balances within the government. Currently the American and English governments are both constructed in a way that checks and balance equalize the power. No part of the government is all powerful. In the American government, there are three branches of government, the legislative, the judicial and the executive. Each branch has a specific part that they play in allowing the government to function and they are all regulated by each other. While in the English government there is the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Voltaire describes these ideas many times throughout his
How far were the events in Scotland responsible for the failure of Charles I’s Personal Rule?
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
The year 1066, a year of wasted dreams and tremendous triumphs, was a year that would dramatically alter the face of England for eternity. The 14th of October was a day that would make it into the history books, it was the day the fearsome French invaders conquered England. The Saxon army, defending their motherland, triumphed over Harald Hardrada’s ruthless Viking barbarians. Little did they realize, that just south of them, lay a formidable power restlessly waiting to get his hands on England. The true victor would be a cunning French warrior, who would unleash a force large enough to make the grounds vibrate and ocean lurch. This man was William the Conqueror.
The War of Spanish Succession is another example of when Scottish politics was seen to be of lesser importance to English ministers. King Carlos II of Spain died in 1700 without an heir. He left the Spanish throne to Philip of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV of France. England saw this, as a threat as of France and Spain would become united when on the death of Louis XIV. Louis XIV recognised James II and VII’s son as the rightful heir not Queen Anne. This led to the Spanish War of Succession, which was fought to ensure the threat of French dominance in Europe. Scotland, again, was not considered in this decision and was completely ignored on whether they wanted to fight in this war. This decision by English minsters prompted Scotland to pass