Absolutism and Parliamentary Rule in England

864 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Brief and concise paragraph comparing and contrasting islam and christianity

For a period in time, the Catholic Church held the “divine right of kings” to be all important, to be paramount. To the Catholic Church, it is a doctrine that states royal and political legitimacy. A divine right of kings affirms that a monarch is subject to absolutely no earthly authority. God had given the power and authority to a king in order that he may rule. In doing this, it consequentially gave the king the right to rule directly from the will of God and not be questioned or contended with. This doctrine states that the king is not subject to the will of his people, and did not have to answer to them, nor could the king be taken off his throne by the people. It also states that if anyone attempts to question the king’s authority, not only would it be marked for treason, but it will be seen as talking against God, as a sacrilege, since the king’s words and laws were only answerable to the Lord, therefore in a sense, questioning or challenging the king, was contesting God.

In 1597, books were written by King James VI of Scotland, regarding the divine rights of the kings. One book in particular, stated the duties of the king, and it stated “A good king acknowledges himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be accountable” (stoics, 2004).

Under the reign of Louis XIV, in 1685, France was beginning a transition it could not fight. Louis XIV attempted to stomp out all traces of Protestant Churches. Protestant schools were closed, as were the churches. Louis XIV even went so far as to have the Protestant ministers exiled from France. Some people converted; while others who would not convert were forced into slavery. Even the children were baptized by the Catholic ...

... middle of paper ...

...of the country depended on who was the current ruler of the country and which religion the king or queen followed. Many different laws were passed regarding the religion of the moment, for the current king or queen presiding on the throne. The current king or queen wished for the entire country to follow in the same footsteps as they were. Because of this, the people were angered and constantly confused by this constant fluctuation of decisions. Some of the kings who followed Catholicism were, Henry VII and Henry VIII but he only for a short while when Henry VIII was refused a separation from the queen, Catherine of Aragon from the Pope in Rome. Henry I and Edward VI were raised and taught in the Protestant religion and during those times, they were given the same treatment as the Protestants were, years before (Tudors and Religion, 2010).

Works Cited

Craig, 2009

Show More
Related

  • Sun King Louis Xiv Dbq

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Edict of Nantes had given Protestants, or Huguenots, in France the ability to practice their religion without fear of violence or persecution. Enacted in the late 1500s in an effort to resemble France after the destruction of the French Wars of Religion, the Edict of Nantes served as a means to unite the French population and end the violence that often accompanied religious persecution. Louis’ decision to revoke such a peace-promoting edict, in an effort to homogenize his country and align his subjects with his own beliefs, clearly illustrates his giving of priority to his own agenda, as opposed to that which would best benefit his country. However, while the claim that the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was detrimental to French society, seems to be disproven by Doc 6, which essentially asserts that the king’s revocation has resulted in the rapid conversion of “whole towns” and describes the king as “the invincible hero destined to… destroy the terrible monster of heresy”, the author’s inherently biased point of view must be addressed. This description, which could be used as evidence to support the fact that Louis did act in interest of the state, must be taken with a grain of salt as the author himself, a member of the Assembly of the Clergy, does not even have the best interest of the state in mind; rather, he is

    Read More

  • King Henry VIII: The Unlikely Reformer

    856 Words  | 2 Pages

    Before the reformation Henry, the VIII had a lot of contributing factors to the start of the reformation. King Henry VIII wanted his marriage with his wife, Catherine of Aragon annulled because he wanted a male heir because at this time women wouldn't rule alone though his wife kept producing females and was about to become too old to have kids and king Henry VIII thought it was her fault not his so he wanted to marry and new younger person Anna Boleyn because he thought she would be

    Read More

  • The Small Amount of Opposition to the Henrician Reformation

    1453 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Postclassical Era in Western Europe

    683 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kings often struggled with the Church over power and land, both trying desperately to obtain them, both committing atrocities to hold onto them. Time and time again, the Popes of the postclassical period went to great extremes to secure the Church’s position in the world. Both the Crusades and the Inquisition are examples of this. D...

    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

  • Absolutism Dbq Essay

    756 Words  | 2 Pages

    Divine right was a widespread idea under absolutist government: the concept that a king’s power was derived from God, and that kings therefore had the power to act as God on Earth. In 1609, James I of England spoke on this idea, proclaiming that kings were God’s lieutenants on Earth and likewise deserved the unquestioned authority of Gods

    Read More

  • Absolutism And Democracy

    526 Words  | 2 Pages

    Absolute monarchy (Absolutism), it is a form of monarchy in which a single ruler has supreme authority and it is not restricted by any written laws or customs. An example of absolutism monarchy is French King Louis XIV, Russian Tsar Peter the Great, or English King Henry VIII. Democracy is a system of government by elected representatives or officials. Example of democracy is the United States. These type of government exist in the 17th and 18th century in Europe. So the question is, which type of government was considered the most effective in Europe? In my opinion, I believe that absolutism was the most effective in Europe.

    Read More

  • St. Paul 's Cathedral

    1129 Words  | 3 Pages

    After King of England, Henry VIII (1491 – 1547) separated the Church of England from the authority of the Pope, the Crown took control of the church in the country. As such, after the English Reformation in the 16th century, the Crown ordered...

    Read More

  • Louis XIV: An Absolute Monarch

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    The church was also brought under control, and Louis sought to do away with all other religions by revoking the Edict of Nantes. Political power was given to noblemen, who were seen as possible opponents, and they were made to reside part of the year at Louis XIVs’ court in Versailles in order to display dominance over them (458–459).... ... middle of paper ... ...

    Read More

  • Absolute Power In Macbeth

    1752 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the early modern period, the political system put in Europe was “absolute power” (Lecturer Morris). According to the OED, “absolute power is a monarch invested in absolute”. In this period, it was believed that it was necessary that only one person designated by God could hold absolute power. Usually this prophecy would be passed down in the royal family, from father to son (Carrol 246). Occasionally, if viewed as worthy of the opportunity, a person, usually a warrior who has served well in war, could rise to the occasion, and can be named king (Lecturer Morris). “The sons do not succeed the fathers, before the people first have as it were anew established them by their new approbation: neither were they acknowledged in quality, as inheriting

    Read More

  • UK's Constitution: The Rule of Law and Parliamentary Sovereignty

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli: The Power of Fear

    852 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...y for his nation, state or city. However immoral, this is necessary for the progression and continuation of the area, and can only be achieved through the respect obtained with fear. By tying the church to the government, people expected the government to behave morally and to abide by the rules of God, but often times, an entirely moral ruler will be overthrown.

    Read More

  • absolutism

    902 Words  | 2 Pages

    Absolute monarchy begins with the idea that one has a “divine right.” James I was one of those Kings who believed in this “divine right.” James I believed God himself put him, and other Kings, on the throne to be His “lieutenants upon Earth.” James I believed he was in the same category as God, seeing as that God and him both “have power to create, or destroy, make, or vnmake, at his pleasure, to giue life, or send death, to iudge all, and to bee iudged….”

    Read More

  • Norman Conquest Pros And Cons

    949 Words  | 2 Pages

    Nobles in England, especially the king, before the time of the conquest, influenced religion in a way that they should not have. During the time when St. Augustine went to Kent and early English history, the pope did not have a close relationship with the island. He thought it was wise to let the king and already appointed bishops choose the bishops, since they knew better who would be appropriate for the positions. When the pope granted this power to the king and current bishops, he was not granting it forever; he was granting it at that time because he thought it was the wise thing to do. Then the English kings refused to give back the power. The pope, desiring to avoid fighting and keep peace, reluctantly complied with England’s resistance, telling them that he needed to confirm their choices at the very least. At the time of the conquest, William, a deeply religious man, changed and improved the situation. He made it clear to the bishops that they will be accountable to the pope. He placed them directly under the authority of the pope, restoring to him the power to appoint men for the bishopric. He further clarified that matters of the Church should be dealt with by the Church, and those of the state should be handled by the state. Thus the position of bishop was restored as a position of the Church not of the state. This encouraged a widespread growth in the religious life. Due to the Norman Conquest, the proper separation of Church and state restored the respective power to the Church and the state and restored appropriate respect and appreciation for

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Sovereignty

    882 Words  | 2 Pages

    The ancient Romans transferred the people’s imperium to the governing emperors. During that time, the emperor was not bounded by the laws’ constraints, as a matter of fact, his word was indeed the law. In the medieval era, the monarchs did not possess a similar power. It was based on a shared aristocracy (Philpott, 2016). Sovereignty during the medieval era existed in the form of de jure, a legitimate entitlement among the nobles, the governed population at the time were free to make their own choices. During the Reformation, the monarchs sort to rid the nobles of their de jure entitlements. During this period, the states craved for a central authority, a venture that was spearheaded by Jean Bodin. According to Bodin, he deemed it fit for the authoritative figures to seek counsel from a specialized group of individuals, an appointed Senate. Bodin thought that the sovereign needed to set up the Estates (a political order) to communicate with the population and magistrates who would administer the laws. Sovereignty according to Jean Bodin existed outside the confines of nobility; leaders were supposed to be constrained by the law, and act in accordance to a jus gentium, a law common to every nation (Philpott,

    Read More

More about Absolutism and Parliamentary Rule in England

Open Document