Disruptions in Monarch-Parliament Relations, 1621-1625

931 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The effects of the spanish american war on spain

When James I died in 1625, the relationship between monarch and parliament was arguably still a sufficient and workable one. However, from the years 1621 to 1625, the two sides faced many difficulties; primarily issues revolving religion, finance, and foreign policy. The three issues majorly interlinked when the country was faced with decisions regarding the 30 Years War. Although James’ policies were of great significance in causing difficulties between him and parliament, there are other factors, out of James’ control, that proved to be pivotal in disrupting the relationship of the two sides; such as the underlying religious disagreements facing Europe at the time. The disagreements between monarch and parliament was greatly triggered in 1921 when James implied that MPs could discuss foreign policy. Discussions regarding the ‘Spanish match’ (the marriage between Charles and the Spanish princess, Maria Anna) had been going on since 1614 and was bound to cause controversy in Parliament as Spain was a heavily catholic and anti-protestant country - completely juxtaposing Anglican …show more content…

One of the key roots of dispute between the two countries (as well as Europe as a whole) is the differentiating religious views. Spain was a Catholic, anti-Protestant country while England was a Protestant country with widespread anti-Catholic views. It is plausible that the opposing religious views with Spain is what fuelled Parliament into wanting to pursue the Anglo-Spanish war; going against James’ view of peace negotiations. With this evidence in mind, we can interpret that it is religious differences between Spain and England that sparked difficulties between James and Parliament and not just his policies entirely as he did try to sympathise and understand their view

Show More
Related

  • 1399-1509: The King's Relationship With Parliament

    957 Words  | 2 Pages

    “The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”

    Read More

  • How strong was the opposition to personal rule in England between 1629-1640

    952 Words  | 2 Pages

    Opposition to Charles’ personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was aimed at him from a number of different angles.

    Read More

  • Elizabeth’s Relationship With Her Parliaments

    2147 Words  | 5 Pages

    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... ...

    Read More

  • The Factors That Shaped the Elizabethan Religious Settlement

    2050 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • To What Extent Was Parliament To Blame For The English Civil War

    1894 Words  | 4 Pages

    The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened

    Read More

  • Religion's Role In The English Civil War

    801 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • James VI & I's Desire to Create a Perfect Union Between Scotland and England

    1598 Words  | 4 Pages

    James's plan to create a perfect union was not to be successful for numerous reasons. This essay will discuss the opposing views held by the Scottish and English parliaments and the objections from the church. It will consider the ongoing hostile attitude held by both nations the economic concerns that arose with the prospect of unification. In addition to these, there was a concern surrounding the issue of one Monarch ruling several kingdoms in a situation of multi-governance. It will suggest therefore, despite the attempts of James VI & I to create a perfect union, there were numerous factors that contributed to his failure.

    Read More

  • Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism

    3446 Words  | 7 Pages

    For the people of England in the 1630s, it was a very real threat. After the dissolution of Parliament In 1629, Charles I embarked on his Personal Rule. Without analysing whose fault the breakdown in relations was, it was probably the only. thing Charles could do in the circumstances. Certainly, no dialogue.

    Read More

  • The Thirty Year's War: The Adbalance Of The Thirty Years War

    1374 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Failure Of Charles I's Personal Rule

    1284 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout Charles I’s Personal Rule, otherwise known as the ‘Eleven Year Tyranny’, he suffered many problems which all contributed to the failure of his Personal Rule. There are different approaches about the failure of Personal Rule and when it actually ended, especially because by April 1640 Short Parliament was in session. However, because it only lasted 3 weeks, historians tend to use November 1640 as the correct end of the Personal Rule when Long Parliament was called. There was much debate about whether the Personal Rule could have continued as it was, instead people generally believed that it would crumble when the King lost his supporters.

    Read More

  • Why Civil War Broke Out in England in 1642

    868 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Commonwealth Of Oceana Summary

    1545 Words  | 4 Pages

    The seventeenth century was a time of great chaos and struggle. So much so that many historians have called this time period the “General Crisis.” This century saw conflicts as never seen before, not in magnitude, scale, or number. Europe at this time saw the 30 Years War, the Fronde, a large scale French peasant revolt, and the English Civil War, an altercation which involved the overthrow of an established monarch and regicide. As if that was not enough, several catastrophes were running in the background, even while the blood was spilling.

    Read More

  • Comparing James II And Pincus

    724 Words  | 2 Pages

    With the news of Charles II’s death, “The tears that flowed…as tears of mourning” (Pincus 92). However, “Nevertheless, the moment of anxiety proved fleeting…the accession of James II in February 1685” (Pincus 92). Pincus describes how “opposition to James was largely religious in nature” (Pincus 93). Pincus closely examines the early

    Read More

  • Edwin Dargan's A History Of Preaching

    1650 Words  | 4 Pages

    Dargan noted two major problems for the Kirk were to decide how what to do with the church property, and the relation between the kirk and government (Ibid.). These questions led to a heated debate between the Kirk and James VI, who favored the episcopacy. Upon becoming king of England, James sided with the High Church party, thereby insulting the Puritans (141). Charles I pushed the matters along with Archbishop Laud. It was not long till the Civil War brought about the Commonwealth.

    Read More

  • The Royal Prerogative

    2051 Words  | 5 Pages

    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...

    Read More

More about Disruptions in Monarch-Parliament Relations, 1621-1625

Open Document