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.
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
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).
The Elizabethan era lasted from 1558 through 1603. In American history, this time period is known as the golden age because during this England became much more of a wealthy nation. In this era, the nation was able to invest in arts and exploration. Many writers and poets, such as Shakespeare, shaped the ways of theatre and literature. This era is also vastly known for its ways of handling crime and punishment. In the Elizabethan era, unsparing, common crime and punishment flourished for reasons fluctuating because of social class, gender, religion, and the satisfaction of antiquated torture devices.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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...
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...