Monarchies have shifted to less political importance over the years in favor to parliament and a democratically elected prime minister. The film The Queen is a great example of the limited power of Queen Elizabeth II in present-day and shows the ceremonial purposes of her role. The main reasons that this role shift has happened is because monarchs abused their unlimited power repeatedly. Oliver Cromwell was one man who did not like the way his King, Charles I, was controlling the country and decided to do something about it. What some find startling is that Charles I reign ended by being sentenced to death, and by being beheaded under the weight of an axe.
Charles I was disliked by many of his people because he was trying to change the church to be more catholic, as opposed to being protestant before. Oliver Cromwell was a puritan and had very strong feelings about his religion. Cromwell & others took the view that Parliament had a say in government while Charles thought he had a divine right. In 1623 he took England to war with Spain and then parliament used this as one reason to bring a charge of treason against him. Another large reason Charles had much opposition is because he lacked money and had to tax the people heavily to make up for the fact that parliament refused to support him or give him money. He also took peoples land without compensation to use for warfare.
Charles I is a prime example of what happens when a person is born into their position of King and believes that he has absolute control over the people in his country. The belief that you were selected by god and are specially chosen puts a very twisted reality to a person with such power. The amount of pressure put on someone born into royalty is very hig...
... middle of paper ...
...remonies to keep themselves busy and perhaps improve their image. In the future the monarchy will likely be demolished for financial reasons, because the only reason one can find to keep it going is for tourism, or if the public simply likes the idea of having a royal family in their government. Demolishing the Royal Family is like getting rid of your first pair of shoes because it has a sentimental value, but little purpose in real-world circumstances.
In conclusion both films, The Queen and Cromwell, have shown that in current times monarchies have been given little power in most modern countries because of the lack of representation of its people. And because of the high risk of a unacceptable ruler that would be untainted in his decision making due to the lack of a checks in balance system.
Works Cited
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Civil_War/civilwarmain.htm
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
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
These two opposing religions had their differences be known be the other side and would fight for their ideas to be the ones all to follow. Conrad Russel states in his book The Causes of the English Civil War, that England “was a society with several religions, while still remaining a society with a code of values and a political system which were only designed to be workable with one”. Inside the Church of England was essentially two churches, Protestant and Catholic. Both sides were determined that their religion was going to be the one in the church and not the one outside looking in. Both sides wanted to control the authoritative powerhouse of England and would do anything to have the Church of England become the church of their religion. However, religious differences did not just occur between the citizens, it also occurred between King Charles I and Parliament. First off let’s look at King Charles himself. Charles was a very religious monarch who liked his worship to be High Anglican. He also believed the hierarchy of priests and bishops was very important, which alarmed Parliament because they believed that King Charles was leaning towards the idea of Catholicism in England. King Charles’ form of worship was seen by the Puritan faith as a form of popery. This upset them because they wanted a pure worship without icons or bishops. To clarify, popery is the doctrines, practices, and ceremonies associated with the pope or the papal system; Roman Catholicism. Charles also wanted to support William Laud who was the leader of the High Church Anglican Party because they had recently became prominent. Parliament strongly disagreed with the King’s decision because they feared that Laud would promote Roman Catholicism ideas and
During the fifteenth to nineteenth century, there were several leaders from different countries, who abused their powers as absolute monarchs. The misuse of their powers led to downfall of their country. An example of an absolute monarch who abused their powers is Louis XIV. He is a very important figure in history because he would make decisions and everyone would be under his power and control. For example, he controlled all the taxations, military power and justice. Furthermore, he did not set a list of defined rules. What this meant was that whatever he wanted to do at the time became the law and he could change it anytime. Louis built the Palace of Versailles which demonstrated the wealth and power of the monarch. The expenses for building the palace ended up with peasants unable to pay the increased tax. The country was enraged, countless suffered from poverty and famine. The proposition of a revolution was spread and Louis divine rights were being stripped away. The inevitable failure of absolute monarchy led to the uprising of the Reign of Terror and Napoleon Bonaparte. After the beheading of the King and Queen, France ...
If one were to examine England during the 1620’s and 1630’s, one would see an England writhe with religious anxieties. These worries permeated every aspect of English society from the wealthiest of gentry to the lay Englishman and woman. Having said that, it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what key event contributed to this level of worry; nevertheless, when English society is examined as a whole, a clear picture emerges of England as a nation plagued by a plethora of concerns, not just one solitary issue. However, all of these concerns have a tenuous connection to the actions of the monarchy.
Monarchs like King James on the other hand, abused his power. King James stated to Parliament and the world, that monarchs are equal to God himself and what they say goes. Bishop Bossuet describes this as “profane” and “arrogant” because King James was disgracing the divine right theory. A monarch’s divine right was said to have come from God himself. Sitting on God’s throne and decreeing laws contrary to Him was ludicrous to the Bishop.
The first of these is Religion. Charles came under attack from, in simple terms, the Protestants and the Catholics. He had this attack on him for many different reasons. He was resented by the Catholics, because he was a protestant. To be more precise, he was an Arminian, which was a sector from the protestant side of Christianity. On the other side of the spectrum, he is resented by the puritans, as they see him as too close in his religious views to Catholicism. Furthermore, he is disliked by the puritans as he put restrictions on their preaching and themselves. The puritans were a well organised opposition to Personal rule. The top puritans, linked through family and friends, organised a network of potential opposition to the king and his personal rule. This ‘Godly party’ as they became known, was made up of gentry, traders, lawyers and even lords. This group of powerful and extremely influential people was the most well organised opposition to Charles’ personal rule.
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.
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.
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
Charles Martel was born during the late 7th century in what is now modern day Belgium. His father Pippin the Middle served as Mayor to the Palace of the King of the Franks and had an affair with a mistress which produced one of his bastard children, Charles. Instead of the King having power in the court they were essentially a figurehead and at the same time the Mayor of the Palace was really the king or the commander in chief of the army so Charles’ father Pippin was very powerful. Charles started out life at a disadvantage because just before Pippin’s death he was forced to disown any of the bastard children he had created which included Charles. Therefore Charles was no longer in line to become the next Mayor of the Palace and he lost all political standing while one of Pippin’...
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...
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...