Sentimental Monarchy

750 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Historians views of oliver cromwell

Monarchies have shifted to less political importance over the years in favor to parliament and a democratically elected prime minister. The film The Queen is a great example of the limited power of Queen Elizabeth II in present-day and shows the ceremonial purposes of her role. The main reasons that this role shift has happened is because monarchs abused their unlimited power repeatedly. Oliver Cromwell was one man who did not like the way his King, Charles I, was controlling the country and decided to do something about it. What some find startling is that Charles I reign ended by being sentenced to death, and by being beheaded under the weight of an axe. Charles I was disliked by many of his people because he was trying to change the church to be more catholic, as opposed to being protestant before. Oliver Cromwell was a puritan and had very strong feelings about his religion. Cromwell & others took the view that Parliament had a say in government while Charles thought he had a divine right. In 1623 he took England to war with Spain and then parliament used this as one reason to bring a charge of treason against him. Another large reason Charles had much opposition is because he lacked money and had to tax the people heavily to make up for the fact that parliament refused to support him or give him money. He also took peoples land without compensation to use for warfare. Charles I is a prime example of what happens when a person is born into their position of King and believes that he has absolute control over the people in his country. The belief that you were selected by god and are specially chosen puts a very twisted reality to a person with such power. The amount of pressure put on someone born into royalty is very hig... ... middle of paper ... ...remonies to keep themselves busy and perhaps improve their image. In the future the monarchy will likely be demolished for financial reasons, because the only reason one can find to keep it going is for tourism, or if the public simply likes the idea of having a royal family in their government. Demolishing the Royal Family is like getting rid of your first pair of shoes because it has a sentimental value, but little purpose in real-world circumstances. In conclusion both films, The Queen and Cromwell, have shown that in current times monarchies have been given little power in most modern countries because of the lack of representation of its people. And because of the high risk of a unacceptable ruler that would be untainted in his decision making due to the lack of a checks in balance system. Works Cited http://www.historyonthenet.com/Civil_War/civilwarmain.htm

Show More
Related

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

    957 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Was absolute monarch the foundation of Democracy?

    909 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the fifteenth to nineteenth century, there were several leaders from different countries, who abused their powers as absolute monarchs. The misuse of their powers led to downfall of their country. An example of an absolute monarch who abused their powers is Louis XIV. He is a very important figure in history because he would make decisions and everyone would be under his power and control. For example, he controlled all the taxations, military power and justice. Furthermore, he did not set a list of defined rules. What this meant was that whatever he wanted to do at the time became the law and he could change it anytime. Louis built the Palace of Versailles which demonstrated the wealth and power of the monarch. The expenses for building the palace ended up with peasants unable to pay the increased tax. The country was enraged, countless suffered from poverty and famine. The proposition of a revolution was spread and Louis divine rights were being stripped away. The inevitable failure of absolute monarchy led to the uprising of the Reign of Terror and Napoleon Bonaparte. After the beheading of the King and Queen, France ...

    Read More

  • The Lives and Wives of King Henry VIII

    942 Words  | 2 Pages

    Henry VIII was not raised to become king; his brother was. When Henry took the throne, he had a great education, but no clue about what to accomplish as king and how to do it. Henry was more concerned with his image – he would throw lavish parties to show his luxurious lifestyle, and made few decisions himself concerning governing, instead relying heavily on his councilor...

    Read More

  • Absolute Monarchy Dbq

    424 Words  | 1 Pages

    Monarchs like King James on the other hand, abused his power. King James stated to Parliament and the world, that monarchs are equal to God himself and what they say goes. Bishop Bossuet describes this as “profane” and “arrogant” because King James was disgracing the divine right theory. A monarch’s divine right was said to have come from God himself. Sitting on God’s throne and decreeing laws contrary to Him was ludicrous to the Bishop.

    Read More

  • Victorian Women in the Work Force

    2867 Words  | 6 Pages

    From 1760-1820, King George III ruled England, inheriting the throne from his grandfather and father, King George I and II, respectively. He was responsible for ending the long governmental control by the Whigs, yet many conflicts arose as a result of his abuse of his patronage powers. Campaigns of criticism were created by politicians throughout the country, eventually driving the King to go insane, thus forcing him to give up the throne. After his demoralizing reign, England was seeking a person capable of improving the British Empire’s economic and social situation. With no legitimate heir to the throne, Alexandrina Victoria became the Queen of England, marking the ...

    Read More

  • King Henry VIII

    1308 Words  | 3 Pages

    As one can well imagine, letting another act in one’s stead had a detrimental effect on the king’s power....

    Read More

  • How Did England Develop During The High Middle Ages

    464 Words  | 1 Pages

    These two failures are the reign of King John and the establishment of barons. King John was Richard’s younger brother. Another partial failure was the Magna Carta. He failed to strengthen the English monarchy because he couldn’t hold French lands against Philip. John lost even more of the kingdom’s land when he lost a battle in England. Another bad thing that King John did was that he lost Normandy to Philip. This weakened the English monarchy because it took away some of their land. A baron was any noble who was vassal under the king. They hurt the English monarchy by revolting against the king because of high taxes and continued defeats. The Magna Carta partially hurt England because most of the 63 clauses were made in favor of the barons and no one else. These are some reasons why the English monarchy wasn’t

    Read More

  • English Revolution

    1125 Words  | 3 Pages

    The history of the English Revolution from 1649 to 1660 can be briefly told. Cromwell's shooting of the Levellers at Burford made a restoration of monarchy and lords ultimately inevitable, for the breach of big bourgeoisie and gentry with the popular forces meant that their government could only be maintained either by an army (which in the long ran proved crushingly expensive as well as difficult to control) or by a compromise with the surviving representatives of the old order. But first there were still tasks to be done.

    Read More

  • Louis XIV

    967 Words  | 2 Pages

    over the stupidest things, when Charles II were to die with no kids, he made

    Read More

  • King Charles I and Protestan England

    1250 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...his fact did not abate concerns over religion. Realistically, the perception created by Charles played the largest role in the fuelling of religious anxieties. With this in mind, many Protestants in England perceived the king as a leader being undermined by a Catholic queen, a king who had abandoned the Protestant cause, and a monarch that supported a controversial theology. All of these perceptions, whether true or not, served to create a period of great religious tension.

    Read More

  • British Monarchy

    773 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion, since 1832 a lot has changed within the monarchy. Because of things such as the Great Reform Bill of 1832 and the formation of political parties, the monarchy’s political roles have greatly decreased. In addition, with the help of growing technology, the social roles of the monarch have blossomed. Through ease of travel and advances in television and radio, the monarchy can be seen and heard by people all around the world. Although the public opinion of the monarch has fluctuated greatly over the years, they always seem to bounce back and land on their feet.

    Read More

  • Henry Vii Research Paper

    1573 Words  | 4 Pages

    The British Monarchy of Henry VII led England into a new path of modernism through politics, culture and social aspects. His addition of more modern, while keeping the good from the former style helped him build his monarchy the way he wanted. Henry didn't just bring renovations but a nonviolent environment for everyone. King Henry VII influenced a positive change between the Lancastrians and Yorkist and expanded the British monarchy. He accom-plished his purpose by being the change he wanted to see in England.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Hamlet's Relationship With Ophelia

    1109 Words  | 3 Pages

    Monarchs and royalty have ruled over us common people for millennia -excluding the past few centuries- and while there have been some great royals like Qin Shi Huang, Julius Caesar, and the current Queen Elizabeth II, there have certainly been some bad ones too. Caligula, a crazed Roman emperor that raped and killed his sister, and Queen Mary I, a devout Catholic that burned three hundred protestants at the stake and lost the last territories England had on the European continent, are both examples of royals that never should’ve been trusted with the throne. Just because someone is born in the line of succession doesn’t mean that they should be given power. Despite Hamlet’s cunning, intelligence, and support from the people, he would’ve made

    Read More

  • The Restoration Under Charles II

    1504 Words  | 4 Pages

    Generally, the English people had a great celebration when Charles II returned to the throne in May of 1660.1 Many believed that restoring the monarchy was the only way to secure constitutional rights. In fact, there was an expectation that bringing back the king would return life to the way it was before 1642 and the rule of Cromwell. Charles II was responsible for improving the government for the people. However, despite some achievements, the king was not very successful in creating a stronger and more effective monarchy. He was dependent on his advisors and other parts of the government from the very beginning of his reign. There were constant conflicts between the king and Parliament over religious issues. When Charles II finally did gain some independence, he still did not accomplish much to improve the monarchy. Overall, the government was very inconsistent during the 1660s and 1670s, and the people became disillusioned with the monarchy. The king did not hold all of the responsibility for what happened to the government, though. The people should have taken charge and worked for a change in the system. The rule of Charles II helped show the English citizens that they could not rely on the government so much, but they needed to take more of the power into their own hands and become more autonomous.

    Read More

  • Shakespeare’s Richard II Essay: The Rape of a Nation

    1426 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...se very problems not only signified a fundamental change in the concept of autocratic rule in England, it also paved the way for the development of a more socially equitable system of parliamentary democracy, for once the will of the people is finally recognized, kings are reduced to mere anachronisms.

    Read More

More about Sentimental Monarchy

Open Document