The Roles of Charles Stuart and John Pym in Parliaments Victory of the English Civil War On August the 2nd 1642 King Charles the 1st raised his standard at Nottingham. The English Civil War had begun and it lasted from 1642 until the King’s execution at the beginning of 1649. One could argue that it was actually two separate Civil wars, fought between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists. The first war beginning in 1642 and ending in 1646 when the King was captured, and then the second from 1647 after the Kings escape, to 1648 when he was again defeated and captured. However we will simply be looking at the years up until his surrender to the Scotts, April 1646, as by the end of June that same year, the surrender of Oxford was to mark the virtual end to the war. So who were John Pym and Charles Stuart, and what role did they play in the events that led to Parliament’s victory? I will look at their actions during the Cival war that may have helped the Parliamentarians gain victory. By 1640, John Pym had become the head of a political group who later became known at the Parliamentarians. Pym was a skilled political tactician who first entered parliament in 1620. He had participated in the Commons’ Protestation against James in 1621 for which he was placed under house arrest for five days as a result. He also took part in the attack on the Duke of Buckingham due to his belief that the man was incompetent in the way of foreign policy. The Parliamentarians (although not named that) originated back in the 1620’s with a group of Lords and MP’s -Lord Saye and Sele, the Earl of Warwick and Sir John Eliot. They organised the Petition of... ... middle of paper ... ...l counties regardless of whether or not they were loyal or neutral and this severely damaged the local’s relations with the royalists. R.H.Parry explained that “farmers refused to follow their landlords into the royalist camp and offered to pay their rents to parliament instead. The Yeomen and clothiers, and the whole ‘middle rank’ of people in Somerset, as well as the ‘poorer sort’, turned to parliament to defend them against the royalist nobility and gentry.” Angela Anderson believes that this was not so much a fault of the King but simply the need to supply the King’s armies with food and other necessities due the high demands of the army. Yet Charles was the only man who could have prevented this, being the sole leader of his forces and his failure to do so led to villages in the west supporting Parliament instead.
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
1760 - George III came to the throne, he was proud of his country and
When Britain entered the war, one of their biggest problems was uneven support for the war. There were many American sympathizers in British Parliament. These sympathizers saw the revolt in the colonies as a plausible and reasonable reaction. The fact that parliament as a whole was not in complete favor of the onc...
The 17th century was a chaotic time period in England. England saw a transition in their nation’s religion during the reign of different monarchs. Before the start of the 17th century, England was under a Roman Catholic monarch with Queen Mary. Mary attempted to turn the Church of England into a Catholic Church and in the process earned the name “Bloody Mary”. She earned this name through her executions of many Protestants in England. However once Mary was unsuccessful in creating a Catholic England and was no longer the monarch, the Church went back to a Protestant Church. With the church now being Protestant, the Catholic minority in England began to become upset with the church and even plotted to make the church Catholic again through violence.
was just a piece in the puzzle of Charles grand plan to win the war,
Thomas Pownall was a man of high status who had a huge influence in British politics. With a resume of governing the Province of Massachusetts Bay, to serving in British parliament, one could say that Pownall was a huge advocate of British practices. Although a supporter of the colonies, Pownall confidently spoke of the impossibility of Independence America faced. He was not alone in this idea, and was supported by other people and situations that made his statement a reality. There were examples from 1600-1763 that support Pownall’s implications; however, through great perseverance and help, the colonies were able to support themselves long enough to build a flourishing America.
51. Through an examination of Parliament’s actions relating to the colonies from 1763 to 1774, explain Great Britain’s approach to the crisis it faced in the post-Seven Years War/French and Indian War decade.
The English Civil war was partially a religious conflict, which brought Church and State against Parliament. Under the reign of James I, England saw the rise in Protestants dissenters. Groups like Barrowists, Puritans, Fifth Monarchists, Quakers, and many more demanded for more religious reform. They felt that the Church of England’s liturgy was too Catholic for a Protestant church. 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. He did not stop there. He ordered that alters should be re-sited from the central places in churches to the east end of churches across the country. This essay will discuss Laud’s Arminian doctrines and his misjudgement of England’s religious mood, which led to his downfall and to the civil war.
the threat he made and also out of loyalty as the prince has a lot of
during the American Revolution, or to war with Great Britian, who at the time was
After our study of many accounts of the English Civil War and Charles I’s trial and execution, it is clear that discovering historical truth and writing a satisfying history are two very separate, difficult tasks, and that finding among many accounts a single “best” story is complex, if not impossible. In order to compare the job each historian did in explaining what’s important about this conflict, the following criteria can be helpful for identifying a satisfying history.
Edward V and his brother so that he could be next in line for the crown. But that is not true for Richard really didn’t do it.
assistants, 1641-1644. Arranged to accompany the reprints of the laws of 1660 and of 1. Boston:
Carswell, John. The Descent on England; a Study of the English Revolution of 1688 and Its European Background. New York: John Day, 1969. Print.
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...