Opposition to Charles’ personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was aimed at him from a number of different angles. The first of these is Religion. Charles came under attack from, in simple terms, the Protestants and the Catholics. He had this attack on him for many different reasons. He was resented by the Catholics, because he was a protestant. To be more precise, he was an Arminian, which was a sector from the protestant side of Christianity. On the other side of the spectrum, he is resented by the puritans, as they see him as too close in his religious views to Catholicism. Furthermore, he is disliked by the puritans as he put restrictions on their preaching and themselves. The puritans were a well organised opposition to Personal rule. The top puritans, linked through family and friends, organised a network of potential opposition to the king and his personal rule. This ‘Godly party’ as they became known, was made up of gentry, traders, lawyers and even lords. This group of powerful and extremely influential people was the most well organised opposition to Charles’ personal rule. Another source of opposition to Charles’ personal rule was that of the parliament and Charles’ financial expenditure. Charles’ personal rule lasted 11 long years in which he didn’t call parliament for any money or subsidies. To finance his problems, he used his position of power as king to call upon favours and rules that enabled him to gain money without calling parliament. One of these was selling titles. Distraint of Knighthood. This was where men who owned estates worth £40 per annum were in theory supposed to present them to be knighted at a new King’s coronation. Charles thus fined people for not doing so even though the practice had... ... middle of paper ... ...bers opposed aspects of Charles’ government. Another reason that opposition to personal rule was so strong, was that Charles ruled three kingdoms, all of which had different religions. England was mainly Anglican. Scotland was split between fierce Presbyterians and Catholics. In conclusion, opposition to personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was very strong. Charles had criticism and opposition coming at him from all directions and angles. This therefore put him under serious pressure. The key are of opposition for Charles was ‘Thorough’. This was the key are of opposition because it applied to the whole country, and eventually Ireland. ‘Thorough’ made itself lots of enemies as it was so far spread. Most, if not all areas, disliked ‘Thorough’ due to the king and his minions Wentworth and Laud putting pressure on the local sheriffs to abide by the kings word more.
Due to the unstable political environment of the period 1399-1509, royal power varied from monarch to monarch, as parliament’s ability to limit this power fluctuated. There are several factors in limiting royal power, including the king’s relationship with parliament, royal finances and a king’s popularity, often due to military success. The most significant of these factors, however is the king's finances, as one of parliament's primary roles was to consider the king’s requests for taxation, and thus denying these requests would have been one of the few ways to effectively limit royal power.
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
That is not to say there was no opposition to the reformation, for it was rife and potentially serious. The opposition came from both the upper and lower classes, from the monks and nuns and from foreign European powers. This opposition however, was cleverly minimised from the outset, Cromwell’s master plan ensured court opposition was minimal and new acts, oaths and decrees prevented groups and individuals from publicly voicing their dissatisfaction. Those who continued to counter such policies were ruthlessly and swiftly dealt with, often by execution, and used as examples to discourage others. Henry’s desire for a nation free of foreign religious intervention, total sovereign independence, a yearning of church wealth and the desire for a divorce sewed the seeds for reform.
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
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
With any new monarch’s ascension to the throne, there comes with it changes in the policies of the country. From Elizabeth’s new council, to Henry’s documented polices and even to William the Silent’s inaction in response to threats were all policies that needed to be worked out by the new rulers. This group of rulers all had something in common; they chose to let their people make their religious preference solely on their beliefs but they all differed in their ways of letting this come about. This was monumental for the time period in which they lived, but it was something that needed to be done to progress national unity.
The primary issues that fueled the Civil War in 1642-1649, the Commonwealth in 1649-1660, the Stuart Restoration 1660-1688 ...
King Charles I left us with some of the most intriguing questions of his period. In January 1649 Charles I was put on trial and found guilty of being a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and a public enemy of England. He was sentenced to death and was executed on the 9th of February 1649. It has subsequently been debated whether or not this harsh sentence was justifiable. This sentence was most likely an unfair decision as there was no rule that could be found in all of English history that dealt with the trial of a monarch. Only those loyal to Olivier Cromwell (The leader opposing Charles I) were allowed to participate in the trial of the king, and even then only 26 of the 46 men voted in favour of the execution. Charles was schooled from birth, in divine right of kings, believing he was chosen by God to be king, and handing power to the parliament would be betraying God. Debatably the most unjust part of his trial was the fact that he was never found guilty of any particular crimes, instead he was found guilty of the damage cause by the two civil wars.
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.
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.
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.
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...
England’s subjects. James and his son Charles were unable to keep the balanced once held
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...