More handpicked essays just for you.
Execution of charles the first significat in the royal power in england
Execution of charles the first significat in the royal power in england
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The trial and execution of King Charles I was a process that contained many changes for the English nation in early 1649. The nation’s issues with Charles Stuart did not begin in the last year of his life; however, it began long before January 1649. The king at the time came from a monarchy and was above the law as ordained by God. Others saw this, as stated in his charges at the trial, that he had conceived “a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself and unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his Will, and to overthrow the Rights and Liberties of the People.” Charles’ own indignation of his place in the law created issues within England, dividing the nation politically and religiously. There were multitudinous factors that moved King Charles I to his …show more content…
The road leading up to the trial and execution of Charles is a tumultuous one with many twists and turns. Charles Stuart’s father, King James of England, left the country deeply in debt due to a war with Spain. During this time, the House of Commons controlled the funds to pay for war. Due to this, the House was able to expand its power because of the struggle to pay off debt. These same disputes about money and power between the Parliament and the King continued under Charles I, who reigned from 1625 to 1649, where he met his death. Four years into his reign, Charles dissolved Parliament and decided to rule on his own accord. In order to fund his ruling, he expanded taxes on the inhabitants of England. One of the most prevalent taxes he expanded was changing both inland and port cities special “ship money” for his defense. The “ship money” taxes were used in case a fleet was needed to be sent out to defend the kingdom. Under his rule, a second issue came about with religion because of the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. Laud attempted to make the English church adopt more elaborate
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.
Bush, Michael. ‘Up for the Commonwealth’: the significance of tax grievances in the English rebellions of 1536, English Historical Review 106 (1991).
Opposition to Charles’ personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was aimed at him from a number of different angles.
The monarchy had only just been reformed in 1660 so when Winstanley made this statement, little time had passed. However, with Cromwell being heavily involved in the trial and ex...
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
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.
Today some people can get away with just about any small crime with no punishments, but in the Elizabethan era you'd think twice before committing a crime. For stealing fruit in the Elizabethan era you can lose your hand. Today you would get community service or some other small punishment. The punishment you were given had to do with the crime, your wealth, and who you were connected to.
Archbishop William Laud had a significant impact on the history of Great Britain during King Charles I’s reign. Archbishop Laud had his own agenda while serving the king. Many thought Laud’s plan was where he went very wrong. One aspect of Archbishop Laud’s plan was to better establish the church and clergy of England, Laud’s downfall was his desire to promote churchmen. Laud wanted to see churchmen back in political power. To many people during this time, the promotion of churchmen seemed to contradict the triumph the Protestant community had over the clergy. This control is what the English Reformation was...
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.
Early in European history, punishment for crimes was cruel and usually performed in public and for entertainment. As time progressed, the views of capital and corporal punishment progressed with it. People began to hate any kind of capital punishment, and many began to speak out against punishment, including major philosophes and prison reformers. Many eyewitnesses saw the delight of people watching the executions, and became disgusted. The factors that lead to this punishment also changed, going from absurd to more reasonable crimes.
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.
What would be going through you mind if you were punished by being whipped, hung, burned to death, or starved during the Elizabethan Era? During the Elizabethan Era, there were different types of crimes committed and punishments faced. This paper will explain to readers the significance of the crimes and punishments .
In the short story “Charles” written by Shirley Jackson, Laurie, a young kindergartener who is able to run around causing trouble without his parents knowing or even suspecting anything. Laurie is an arrogant, yet creative and persuasive child.
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...