Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of religion on politics
Ligious context of the english civil war
Ligious context of the english civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Influence of religion on politics
The English Civil War broke out in 1642. There were many causes. Charles 1 reined from 1625 to 1649. Over that time, many of Charles’ English subjects became alienated by his religious policies. Many English Protestants or “puritans” came to believe in the existence of a sinister royal plot, one which aimed at the restoration of the Catholic faith in England. He displayed an apparent determination to rule without parliament. The personal rule of Charles 1 lasted eleven years. A key cause was that many people were unhappy that “illegal” taxations took place and had little faith in their king’s ability to manage money effectively.
At the time of the rein of Charles’ 1 England, Scotland and Ireland were all under his rule. They had all their
…show more content…
own religious movements and disagreed with each other about the way worship should take place. England at the time was protestant. King Charles 1 favoured the elaborate and ritualistic High Anglican form of worship which made many Protestants and puritans dislike him because it closely resembled the Roman Catholic for of worship. He also went on to marry Henrietta Maria of France who was a Catholic. After William Laud had been appointed to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 he and Charles 1 combined many beliefs to create “Laudianism”. This new set of beliefs married closely to catholic beliefs. A new “altar policy” drastically changed the way that people were to gain access to God. After King Charles 1 also tried to make a new prayer book (a book that all priests must read from when preaching) and when this happened there was outrage in Scotland. Source D states “The Bishop of Edinburgh (who was to preach) went into the pulpit…and presently a stool was thrown at his head” “That in the new Service-book...was the…very same words that are in the Roman Missal…the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.” This caused great doubt to fall on King Charles’ I true religious standings as he seemed to prefer many catholic-like beliefs but “Charles claims to defend: “The religion of the Protestants”” (Source F). He was suspected of a royal plot which aimed to restore the Catholic religion in England. King Charles I ruled for 11 years from 1629 to 1640 without the recourse of parliament.
He did not want to consult parliament but would rather rule alone, only consulting a small group of people who became much hated. King Charles I passed the usual court system and used the infamous “court of the star chamber” to enforce his will. King Charles believed that he was above the parliament as he was a absolute king, “[The King] is above the law…absolute parliament…or else…he is not a absolute king” (Source A). King Charles I also cared nothing for the limits of his royal privilege, “with articles of impeachment against five commoners and one peer. He demanded that they be immediately imprisoned on a charge of high treason. The Lords…appointed a committee to consider its legality. In the meantime, Charles had sent a sergeant to the Commons to arrest the five members of the Lower House even before the Lords had agreed to it. The commons too, refused the order, returning the answer that an attempt to arrest any of its members was a breach or privilege” (Source …show more content…
G) Charles I had many financial difficulties.
King Charles I did not call parliament during his personal rule and because of this he was not able to ask parliament for money. Asking the parliament to consent for new or increased taxes had been the normal way Kings and Queens had raised money. Because King Charles was not able to collect Tonnage and Poundage due to unresolved financial difficulties (Source E) As King Charles I desperately needed money he needed other ways of obtaining it. Ship Money was a tax that was put on coastal areas to fund the navy as these areas are most likely to be needed to be defended from attackers. King Charles I decided to extend this levy to all of England in 1635. Concerted opposition started to gather momentum. Additionally many “monopolies” were put sold to various groups of people and these were sold for large sums of money. “Jesuits and Benedictines…dealing stocks rather than souls” (Source I). The first parliament that King Charles I called during his personal rule was in 1640. Charles desperately needed money in order to fight the Scottish war. The Scottish had crossed the border into England at the river tweed on 20th August 1640. They met little resistance and went on to occupy the Northern city of Newcastle. Charles had to pay the Scots 850 pounds a day for a treaty on the 21st October 1640. People were even being forced to “lend” money to the King and their refusal to do so could have them put into jail, “your people have been…required
to lend…money…and some of them, upon their refusal to do so…have been therefore imprisoned”. “Ship money did establish a new style of taxation…Ship money offered a long-term prospect of real financial independence for the monarchy…perhaps for that reason, it …created…deep-seated opposition” (Source C). In conclusion were a number of causes to the English Civil War. There were the religious conflicts between different religions and the doubt of the true nature of the religion of the Monarch. The King was issuing taxes onto the people to raise more money to spend. The King was also selling monopolies to various groups including one for soap to a catholic church. Finally the personal rule of King Charles I caused much concern and opposition from the people and the parliament. All of these factors played a key role in the beginning of the English Civil War
This was due to parliament’s primary role being to consider the king’s requests for taxation. Refusing this request was on of the few ways to limit royal power. During part of his reign, Edward IV was able to rule with total royal power, after he signed the “Treaty of Picquigny”, which granted him £15,000, and then a pension of £10,000 a year. This money enabled Edward to rule without the need to call for a parliament, meaning he was free from control and criticism. This treaty was important as it signifies parliament losing some of their ability to control the crown. Edward was able to rule with this pension until 1482, to pay troops against Scottish rebels. Edward IV shows us that a king was able to rule with complete royal power, as long as they had the funds to support themselves. This also worked the other way round, with financially struggling monarchs having much of their royal power limited by parliament. The most important example of this is in 1404, when parliament demanded the appointment of “special” treasurers, to ensure taxes were not spent in the royal household. Henry IV later faced further limiting of his royal power, after thirty-one acts were written to control the finances of the royal
However, the most important aspect of incoming finance was Ship Money, this was a tax levied without the consent of Parliament. In the first year, 1635, Ship Money raised £213, 964 and was collected very quickly, whereas by 1639 only £53,000 which was calculated at 25% of the tax imposed. Also, the John Hampden trial of 1637 encouraged opposition against Charles and the government and it received large public interest. Furthermore, important Lords such as Lord Saye and Sele encouraged John Hampden with the trial, even though the Crown won the trial, five votes out of the twelve judges were in favour of Hampden. In addition, because of the effect of the trial ‘dozens of petitions against Ship Money were presented to the Privy Council’, eventually the trial caused a taxpayers’ strike in 1639. Overall, finances played an important part in Scotland, but were also responsible for problems in England. Seeing as the Scottish were controlling Newcastle, the Treaty of Ripon was a way of ending the financial problem. Also, Charles suffered from finances throughout his Personal Rule hence he desperately got his advisors to exploit old laws and expand Ship
As the Reconstruction Era ended, the United States became the up and coming world power. The Spanish-American war was in full swing, and the First World War was well on its way. As a result of the open-door policy, England, Germany, France, Russia, and eventually Japan experienced rapid industrial growth; the United States decided to pursue a foreign policy because of both self- interest and idealism. According to the documents, Economic self- interest, rather than idealism was more significant in driving American foreign policy from 1895 to 1920 because the United States wanted to protect their foreign trade, property and their access to recourses. While the documents also show that Nationalistic thought (idealism) was also crucial in driving American foreign policy, economic Self- interest prevailed.
Another source of opposition to Charles’ personal rule was that of the parliament and Charles’ financial expenditure. Charles’ personal rule lasted 11 long years in which he didn’t call parliament for any money or subsidies. To finance his problems, he used his position of power as king to call upon favours and rules that enabled him to gain money without calling parliament. One of these was selling titles. Distraint of Knighthood. This was where men who owned estates worth £40 per annum were in theory supposed to present them to be knighted at a new King’s coronation. Charles thus fined people for not doing so even though the practice had...
Bush, Michael. ‘Up for the Commonwealth’: the significance of tax grievances in the English rebellions of 1536, English Historical Review 106 (1991).
During the 1700’s the Britain Colonist decided to declare war against Great Britain. The war began due to friction between the British colonists over the King's policies. The colonist eventually lost their patience and started a revolution. High taxes, and no religious freedom led the colonist to fight for self government.
The First English Civil War started in 1642 until 1651 and it caused division among the country as to whose side they were on. The war was a battle between the Parliament and King Charles 1, who was the leader of the Royalists. Conflict between the two had always been there as Charles had never gotten on with the Parliament ever since the start of his reign. The disagreement between the two started in 1621 when James chose to discuss his son, Charles getting mar...
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
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.
Many causes led to the Civil War. This all happened around the mid 1800s. It was a conflict between the Northern and Southern states. Both sides had their own view on slavery, and their separate views caused contentions between the two. Both had different views on whether to expand or stop slavery growth to the West, or have slavery at all.
To begin with, there was a great loss of human lives. Beginning in 1643 England, the closest absolute king Charles I attempted to storm and arrest parliament. His actions resulted in a civil war between those who supported the monarchy, Royalists, and those who supported the parliament, Roundheads, which did not end until 1649. Estimates for this war put the number of casualties at 200,000 for England and Wales while Ireland lost approximate...
Customarily, whenever a new monarch came into power, the parliament would vote the amount of tonnage and poundage (the allowance of the king or queen) to give him or her for their entire lifetime. However, they only voted for a year's allowance for King Charles. Cust (2005, p. 45) suggests that the reason behind the parliament's action was because of their disagreement with King Charles concerning England's involvement in the Thirty Year War. As this was his main source of income, King Charles was e...
In England, the king and parliament struggled for power. James I, claimed that kings received their power from God, and he also claimed absolutism. Parliament did not like this since they were used to “balanced polity.” These struggles led to Civil war in England. At the end of the war, King Charles, who was the son of James I, was executed. The parliament said, “ he, the said Charles Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of this nation shall be put to death by the severing of his head from his
Charles was the second king of Scotland, but after his father inherited the English throne in 1603, he moved to England, where he spent most of the rest of his life. After his succession, Charles had a disagreement with the Parliament of England. Charles believed in the divine right of Kings and thought he could govern according to his own conscience. Many of his subjects opposed his policies, in particular the levying of taxes without parliament consent. From 1642, Charles found the armies of the English and Scottish parliaments in the English Civil War. After his defeat in 1645, he surrendered to a Scottish force that eventually handed him over to the English Parliament. Charles forged an alliance with Scotland, but by the end of 1648 Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army had consolidated its control over England. Charles was tried, convicted, and executed for high treason on January 30,1649. The monarchy was abolished and a republic called the Commonwealth of England was declared. The monarchy was restored to Charle’s son, Charles II, in
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 the court declared it to be within the Monarch’s power to determine a state of emergency, requiring tax raising, the Ship Money Act 1637 was passed, making it illegal for the monarch to raise taxation.... ... middle of paper ... ... Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials by Andrew Le Sueur, Maurice Sunkin, and Jo Murkens (Paperback - 12 Aug 2010).