On May 29, 1660, King Charles II arrived in London amongst a sense of euphoria and great fanfare. The monarch, recently arrived from exile on the European continent, seemed to air a sense that the troubles of the past were behind England, and the nation was poised to enter a new period with a Stuart monarch at its helm. Unfortunately, the newly arrived King produced no legitimate heirs during his reign, and the monarchy fell to his younger brother upon his death. After the death of King Charles II, King James II ascended the throne of England. While James II was the legitimate heir to the throne, his personality differences between himself and King Charles II and his policy differences forced England to endure yet another period of political upheaval. In truth, the restoration experienced by King Charles II collapsed twenty eight years later in 1688 forcing King James II to lose the crown and seek asylum on the European continent in the process.
While this collapse of the restoration has many causes, arguably, King James’s personality played one of the most prominent reasons. During King Charles’s reign, the “Merry Monarch” had created a royal court rife with scandalous behavior and never ending avarice. On the contrary, King James II had been a soldier all his life, and as his life progressed, his Catholic piety increased proportionally. Thus, when King James II assumed the throne he had no desire to continue the lifestyle experienced at his brother’s court. James, above all else, prized order, hierarchy, piety, and discipline. As a result, he removed from the royal court “all men and women of pleasure including his own mistress, Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester” This had the effect of making the royal court much mo...
... middle of paper ...
...ul alienation of prominent politicians. Conversely, King Charles II produced no legitimate offspring, and even if he had produced a legitimate heir, King Charles II was a Protestant, at least up until his deathbed when he converted to Catholicism. That being said, his brother was everything that Charles was not, and after a reign of only three years England once again faced a political crisis and a monarch in exile, the often cantankerous King James II.
Bibliography
Bucholz, Robert, and Newton Key. Early Modern England 1485-1714 a Narrative History. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009.
Cook, Harold. "Orange revolution." Nature 452, no. 7190 (2008): 937-8.
The Royal Household. The Official Website of the British Monarchy. 2009. http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheStuarts/JamesII.aspx (accessed December 15, 2013).
Burns, William E."Britain in the Late Middle Ages, 1272–1529." A Brief History of Great Britain, Brief History. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2010. Modern World History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?
Investigating the Minister Who Did the Most to Preserve and Enhance Royal Authority in France 1610-1715
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
...nts would not have happened if Charles I had not been eradicated from the throne of England.
James II of England was the first king to succeed to the kingdoms of both England and Scotland and to be crowned King of both. He was also known as the Duke of York, the Duke of Albany, and the honorary Duke of Normandy; a title that was never to be held again by an English monarch. He was called Lord High Admiral as he commanded the English navy in the Anglo- Dutch war, which resulted in a new English city renamed for him (New York). He became King of England on February 6, 1685 and remained so until he fled to France, escaping the hatred of his countrymen and the threats of his son-in-law on December 11, 1688. He was crowned King of Scotland 11 weeks after his coronation in England on April 23, 1685 and continued ruling over Ireland, even after his deposition, until July 1, 1690 when he was defeated by William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne. Despite his numerous titles and seemingly unlimited influence, his views concerning God, his unpleasant personality, and his outdated views on government would lead to the reconstruction of the English government and a removal of a second monarch, less than 100 years after the removal of Charles I. It’s an impressive resume for a not so impressive man.
Under the reign of Elizabeth I, England enjoyed a period of religious toleration. However, near the end of her reign, a growing religious minority, the Puritans, became increasingly critical of her policies, believing that she was still too close to Catholicism. These grievances were magnified when Elizabeth's successor, James I, a devout Anglican, proved to be far less tolerant and tactful. Furthermore, James was accused of abusing his royal authority by attempting to undermine Parliament. The growing tension between Anglicans and Puritans worsened under James' son, Charles I, who repeatedly angered a Parliament in which the House of Commons had gained a significant Puritan influence. In response, the Puritans, led by Oliver Cromwell, called for a reformation of the church, including the abolition of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and a ban on bishops voting in the House of Lords. When Charles attempted to dispel the situation by arresting five Commons leaders, loyalties in the country split and the English Civil War began.
Frightfully stimulated as a child from a home intrusion by Parisians during an aristocratic revolt in 1651, Louis XIV realized his rule would be decisive, militant, and absolute (458). His lengthy reign as Frances’ king and how he ruled would be the example that many countries throughout Europe would model their own regimes under. With this great authority also came greater challenges of finance and colonization. In the 17th century, the era of absolute monarchs were the means to restore European life (458).
Charles V gained control of the Netherlands and many other countries when his father passed away. At the age of 16, his grandfather, Ferdinand II died, leaving Charles V as joint ruler of Castile and the full ruler of Aragon, Naples, and
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...
In the 1640’s power and politics were vital for social standard and anyone with power was important and respected so naturally and event such as the civil war would have had politics as one of the main issues for happening. Charles becoming king was obviously a cause because it was his decisions that influenced the war itself and him who raised the flag. Also in 1629 Charles decided to close down parliament because he felt they were exerting too much power than they should, also it almost seems as if Charles is afraid of parliament or jealous because he feels that he is entitled to the “divine right of kings” and seeing parliament using all this power made him feel as if he was less and not as important. This was then followed by the “eleven years of tyranny” which ended in 1640 when he recalled parliament due to shortage of money and mistakes he had made.
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.
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.
Lee, Sidney. "Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (1478-1521)." Luminarium: Anthology of English Literature. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1898. 446-7. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. .
Some of the responsibility for problems in the Restoration can then be passed to parliament and the fact that they seemed to demand too much after asking for Charles to take the throne. Having had a period without a monarch, and having much more freedom to do what they wanted, parliament made the mistake of thinking they had this freedom when Charles returned. This is may be why they passed so many acts and declarations, many of which the king was opposed to, and lead to political instability. Parliament’s over-ambitiousness can also be linked to the financial difficulties in the Restoration Settlement as they found themselves with more influence over Charles due to his lack of
They both wanted more power than the other. If Charles had not held such a great belief in ‘the divine right of kings’, he might have been able to avoid a lot of the tensions which built up to and resulted in the civil war. Charles’ personality played a part and showed his opponents that he was arrogant and had little understanding or sympathy for the fears and aspirations of his people. Ultimately, Charles lacked many of the personal qualities needed to be a successful monarch. Finally, he was not good at developing good relationships with and support amongst the politicians and noblemen he needed to rule the country