‘The most important reason for the unpopularity of the Personal Rule was religion.’ How far do you agree? Tyranny can be defined as ‘cruelty and injustice in the exercise of authority over others’, yet now in the modern day the period of ruling by King Charles I without calling parliament for eleven years is often called ‘The Eleven Years Tyranny’ by historians. This essay will cover why this might be, by looking at the various factors contributing to the unpopularity of the Personal Rule, the most important of which will become clear to be religion. Other factors that will be covered in this essay include Charles’ methods of raising funds, the policy of ‘thorough’ in Ireland, the fact that Parliament had no way of passing grievances in the …show more content…
Most people were Church of England Anglican and they did not like churches and church proceedings that were in any way ‘popish’ (appeared to be fancy and Catholic). Nevertheless there were two extremes either side of the more popular beliefs; Arminianism and Puritanism. Puritans wanted to purify the practices of the church to make them less extravagant and more godly. Arminians, on the other hand, liked ceremonies, Bishops and obedience to royalty. It is not difficult to guess which branch Charles I had an affinity for. He appointed William Laud, an Arminian, as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633. William Laud, now in what can be seen as the most authorial church role, came up with 5 church aims: uniformity across the country, ‘beauty of holiness’- making churches fit for worship, the eradication of Puritanism, to increase church influence in government, and to restore the wealth of the clergy. The first and second factors, as simple as they may sound, upset the general public because they involved forcing the congregation to contribute towards improvements that they didn’t want, such as a stone alter. The stone alter also upset the gentry, many of whom would be members of parliament, as the alter was moved to the East of the church where the family pew would normally be. Charles was against Puritanism as many wanted to see the episcopacy abolished, which might explain
In conclusion, though I have shown support for the religion theory most of all in this paper, I do believe that it was not one aspect that set this craze off. Many different theories overlapped to form this tragic and lengthy period of England’s history. Obviously, from the notes we’ve taken in this class, we realize that religion did and always will play a major role in England, or any other country for that matter. Perhaps from this spectacle of unnecessary death, we can learn that any institution, given too much power can, even unwillingly, prove dangerous.
Puritans are discontented with the Church of England. The Puritans are people, who stand in for the pure doctrin of the bible. They reject all forms of religious practise. Every written word in the bible must be believed from them. Who follows God's moral codes will be blessed with eternal life. The conflict between the King, the Church of England and the Puritans had reached the climax when William Laud became the new Archbishop of Canterbury. He brought new beliefs in the Church, but this was unacceptable for the Puritans. This new beliefs included emphasise on individual acceptance or rejection of God's grace, toleration for a varity of religious beliefs, and the incoporation of "high church" symbols. For the Puritans is this not true belief. So they wished to get rid of all catholics influence in their religion. Thats the reason why they split from the Church of England in 1633.
Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
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 Church of England was not a good religion during the sixteenth century, the puritans want to practice their own religion but the Church of England would not allow them. People didn’t want to obey the churches authority anymore. The Puritans it particular did not want to follow the Church of England. Over time, “the church of England began to crack down on those who refused to bow to their authority” (www3.gettysburg.edu) this caused the Puritans to leave England. The puritans left England and went on a dangerous journey to be free from the church. It was so bad that, “it got to the point where the puritans decided to face the dangerous journey to the New World rather than be persecuted for their religion” (www3.gettysburg.edu) these people would rather put their lives and families in danger than to be put down by the Church of England. There were ranks inside the church and women were at the bottom.
The constant debate over the school systems in America, have yielded a discussion over whether these school systems promote individuality through ones’ schoolwork or if the whole system is set up to conform every student. Some important issues to discuss when looking at schools causing individuality or conformity are school dress codes, rigid school schedules and classes, and little creativity promoted in schools.
During this time, the Magna Carta was written and signed. This limited the power of the king and he had to earn approval by the lords before he could make a decision. It also made it so a law can only be passed if it doesn’t go against the Magna Carta. It also implies religion by helping with giving the Church full rights that allows
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.
...By tying the church to the government, people expect the government to behave ethically, but often times, an entirely moral ruler will be overthrown. People expect rulers to act differently than themselves. A ruler cannot show any weakness, or else he will no longer be feared enough to keep him in power, and he will be overthrown. Everybody sees what a ruler seems to be, but few really know who he is. A ruler must seem determined and moral to the people, and show positive results from his leadership. The most important thing for a ruler to do is to avoid being hated or despised by the people, which could occur if a ruler took people's property. For the people, more than the form of power, their perception of power may be the most important for a ruler to maintain his position. “If a ruler wins wars and holds on to power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise him.”(pg.55) Therefore, a ruler should look mainly to winning and to the successful protection of his country. The ways he utilizes for this will always be considered honorable and will be praised by everybody.
To undertake a full thematic investigation of this period would be very much beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, the essay will embark on a high level chronological interpretation of some of the defining events and protagonists, which influenced the early modernization of Ireland during the period 1534-1750. The main focus of the paper will concentrating on the impact and supervision of the Tudor dynasty. Firstly, the essay will endeavour to gain an understanding as to what contemporary historians accept as being the concept of modernization during this time period. The paper will then continue by examine the incumbent societal and political structure of Ireland prior to the Tudor conquests. This will have the impact of highlight the modernising effects produced by the subsequent attempts by the Tudors to consolidate and centralise power in the hands of the State. Once more, due to the vast nature of the time period, not every modernizing effect can be examined. Therefore, the paper will concentrate on the modernization of the political landscape, land ownership and the impact this had on the geographic construct of the island.
Before the Reformation, England was a Roman Catholic society that was led by the Pope in Rome. Religious life followed a very traditional and structured way of life and was very much ‘deeply embedded in the whole social and mental fabric of the country’ (Russell, 1996, p. 262). Roman Catholic’s were a very visual and ritual based religion and their churches were extremely lavish in design and contained highly decorated furnishings inside (Wolffe, 2008). The changes in religion in England over the centuries tended to follow the religion of each different King or Queen (The Crown and the Bible, 2011).
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...
In 1603 the Scottish and English monarchies were united and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarchy of the United Kingdom was deprived of the decision-making privilege they once had. For the purpose of this essay, I intend to examine the many different arguments both for and against the British monarchy being abolished. Proponents argue strongly that the monarchy symbolises all that is British throughout Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. However, contrary to this, the monarchy receives exorbitant financial aid from the British taxpayers to maintain the monarchy. Does the monarchy have a place in the twenty first century?
" Religion is not just a social, cultural, political, or ideological factor; instead it finds its power in the personal chambers of the soul of the individual. Within the soul we discover the source of the private motivation that forms perceptions and behavior ( pg 7, Rediscovering the Kingdom)."