James VI and I accepted the more moderated Puritans and other dissenters, and he was able to keep his kingdom in peace. However, his son Charles I did not believe that kings were answerable to Parliament, but to God. In fact, he ruled without Parliament for many years. He trusted the running of the Church of England to William Laud, who believed that the Church had already gone through too many reforms. Laud went wrong when he tried to make church services more about doctrine and sacraments, and sought to make freewill the official doctrine of the Church.
The Parliament, albeit limited in power, acquired de facto power in previous centuries, making them a significant group in the kingdoms. Due to their power, the king could only adjust taxations with their approval. During the Thirty Years War, Charles I desired to intervene, which would require heavy taxation in order to make up for foreign expenditure. His decision to appoint an unpopular Duke as a commander of the English army led to further hostility and criticism from the Parliament, that were deemed as the voice of a society1. In backlash, Charles I dissolved the Parliament and assembled another, which unfortunately for him, created the Petition of Rights that he was forced to sign2.
Unquestionably, modern film has taken enormous lengths to portray England’s King Henry VIII as a tyrannical monarch with an overwhelming libido who had absolute power over his realm; however, the true nature of the infamous king and his power over his nation are far more intriguing than cinema is capable of portraying. In reality, the power enjoyed by England’s most infamous monarch varied throughout his reign. Additionally, his power was easily manipulated by various courtiers or even his most personal advisors. Furthermore, the amount of influence exhibited over the monarch varied according to the individual motives of the courtier and the year in the king’s reign. In the early years of King Henry’s reign, the king was more preoccupied with enjoying the benefits of fame and power than with ruling his country.
Although he wanted one state church, James believed compromise and toleration would naturally drive citizens to become members, conforming to the policies of the Church of England. Throughout his reign James attempted to decrease religious tensions, as people hoped to increase their influence and role they played in the decisions of the church. There was a distinct split within the Church of England between the Puritans and the Anglicans. The Puritans were members of the Church of England, wanting reformation. They wished to eliminate of some ceremonies and dogmas closely resembling those of the Catholic Church.
As all of this was happening, henry and Sully created a reform called “the Edict of Nantes” which would give more freedom to protestants as they were not accepted as much as Catholics at the time. This reform would have a great impact on his people as it said that it would have toleration to an extent; meaning that this reform will be looked at again in the future. Henry would do t... ... middle of paper ... ...also revoked the Edict of Nantes, which broke the connection between Protestants and Catholics. Louis’s ideas had turned France into a place from the reforms of an immature and narcissistic king, who appeared to also be obsessed with himself. Louis then went on to spend a ton of money to create Versailles, a place of large proportion that would bankrupt France.
His tactics to the nobles was drastically different, his father had taken away some of their power and decreased the nobility numbers, the opposite of this can be seen in Henry VIII. One thing they were very similar on was the desire to secure the dynasty through a male heir. In 1515 Henry is a king who has made an impression very quickly on England by going to war and being the reverse of his father in financial matters. He is a king who has secured support from powerful figures amongst the English nobles and also amongst the foreign states such as Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. Henry has put himself in a strong position because of this and this is what makes his rule one that stretches over four decades, he did not have great amounts of opposition.
Most of the monarchs, when faced with controlling powerful nations, became corrupt and greedy. One example would be Charles I, who came into power after his father James I died. He felt that he should control ... ... middle of paper ... ... The purpose of this essay was to prove that power does corrupt. I think I did a very good job in proving this because I used specific informative examples.
However, his actions were not revolutionary to trigger the civil war. Therefore, the longstanding constitutional conflicts were the main components that evoked the civil war. These causes were the king’s belief of “divine right of kings,” his method of collecting money during the Eleven Years Tyranny, and the aftermath of the imposition of the new religious law in Scotland. Charles I, like his father James I, was a strong believer in the “divine right of kings.” As a result, he believed that the parliament would not argue with any of his decisions. However, the parliament did argue with him over the issues of money and religion.
Naturally, when a religion becomes world renowned, someone will eventually find a flaw in the system, and that’s what Luther and his reformers did. The Catholic Church didn’t help their case by becoming greedy and trying to cover their loses either. Another major long-term cause was humanists urging for a simpler, less corrupt religion. Finally strong national monarchs emerging was a major cause to the Protestant Reformation. Many of these long-term causes of the Protestant Reformation led to impactful and sever consequences for western
Moreover he could eventually bear an heir to the Tudor lineage. Henry believed that obtaining a divorce would be simple yet he was met with many difficulties. The Pope employed stalling tactics that resulted in augmented tension bet... ... middle of paper ... ...was clearly beneficial. Henry himself believed that the same person should be both the temporal and religious leader. For example he ordered Cramner, Archbishop of Canterbury to collect historical evidence to support such views.