The Considerations that Influenced Cromwell's Decision to Reject the Offer of the Crown in 1657
Works Cited Missing
The new constitution was called the Humble Petition and Advice and was
presented to Cromwell in March 1657. It was an attempt to return to
the 'good old days' when the monarch's powers were checked by the
Privy Council and both Houses of Parliament. Cromwell was also invited
to be King. Cromwell struggled over a month as to what he should do.
In the end, Cromwell accepted most of the Humble Petition but rejected
the crown. This poses the question as to why Cromwell turned down the
offer of the crown; different schools of thoughts have proposed
different views.
Some historians believe Cromwell had been greatly influenced by the
army's opposition to the crown. The soldiers had objected because many
had fought in the Civil Wars to remove the institution of monarchy and
regarded, as 'dangerous to the people of England', and if Cromwell did
accept the crown it would mean the end of the 'good old cause'. In
addition, by accepting the crown it would have supported the army's
charges of hypocrisy and ambition. Therefore, some historians believe
that Cromwell was deterred because the majority of his senior officers
were against the idea of the crown, as shown by R. Hutton (in Source
5), "Lambert, Fleetwood and Desborough all told the Protector that
they would resign", this shows that there was a threat from the senior
officers, particularly by those who "loved him". However, other
historians find it difficult to believe ...
... middle of paper ...
...seen throughout the Protectorate.
There were 'fatal internal contradictions' in the sense that there
were too many conflicting interests to please, and that the Cromwell
was far too closely associated with the army and its politicisation.
There were further conflicts between establishing godly rule for which
Cromwell needed the army and arriving at political settlement which
would be long-lasting. These conflicts within the Protectorate were
serious and this became apparent when the republic collapsed. The
political settlement was fairly stable in the short-term but it
collapsed in the long-term. Cromwell needed to "come to a settlement,
and lay aside arbitrary proceedings" but with all the 'internal
contradictions', he was not able to establish a lasting political
settlement by the time of his death in September 1658.
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
Opposition to Charles’ personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was aimed at him from a number of different angles.
From a jurisdictional perspective, Henry I dictates to the great men of Worcestershire how pleas concerning the division or occupation of lands would be handled henceforth: feuding lords, as his tenants in chief, were to appear in the King’s Court, feuding vassals were to either appear before the Lord’s Court or the County Court depending on whether they shared a common lord. As a secondary issue, the writ is, to some extent, integrating the local court system as an extension of royal influence through this separation of jurisdiction. While Henry is, in a sense, respecting the baron’s authority over his vassals, the king is, in effect, enrolling the localities to hear specific land disputes, deemed not fit to be heard in seigniorial courts, on his
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
training when he came to power in 1485, had managed in the time he was
The Extent to Which Tudor Rebellions Have Similar Causes Tudor rebellions were caused by one or more of the following factors: dynastic, political, religious, and social and economic. There was an element of both similarity and continuity in the period as most of the rebellions were politically motivated starting with Warbeck’s rebellion in 1491 until the end of the period with Essex’s rebellion in 1601. This displays clear political motives across the period. During the reign of Henry VII, many of the rebellions were dynastically motivated with a series of challenges from pretenders to the throne, Simnel and Warbeck and rebellions due to heavy taxation; Yorkshire and Cornish anti tax riots. However, by the reign of Elizabeth, religion became a factor for rebellions particularly at the turning point of 1532; the Reformation.
Thesis: The Roanoke colony proved to be an unsuccessful venture in the New World for England, since leaders of the expedition held the viewpoint that privateering would prove to be the most profitable aspect of founding the new settlements in the West. However future, still unsuccessful attempts to make a permanent colony at Roanoke, helped England understand how to build a prosperous one; and it became a building block for establishing future colonies for England and helped shape the ideas that would help launch their empire.
Effectiveness of the Tory and Whig Arguments Prior to the American Revolution In the eighteenth century, the American Revolution played a vital role in determining the future of the American colonies. Prior to the Revolution, propagandas from both the Tories and Whigs influenced the choices that Americans make. Both sides exchanged attacks and accusations in their publications, while also presenting realistic evidence and logical reasoning to back their doctrine and arguments. Two of the many documents preceding the Revolution are especially interesting in terms of their structure of presentation.
When examining the bloody and often tumultuous history of Great Britain prior to their ascent to power, one would not have predicted that they would become the global leader of the 18th century. Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War, the Spanish and the Holy Roman Empire held much of the power in Europe. Only with the suppression of Catholicism and the development of national sovereignty did Great Britain have the opportunity to rise through the ranks. While much of continental Europe was seeking to strengthen their absolute monarchies and centralized style of governing, in the 17th and 18th centuries Great Britain was making significant political changes that reflected the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment. The first of the political philosophers was Thomas Hobbes who first introduced the idea that the monarch ruled not by “divine right” but through the consent of the people. This was a radical idea with ramifications that are reflected in the great changed Great Britain made to to their government in the 17th century. Through a series of two violent civil wars between the monarchy and Parliament and the bloodless civil war known as the Glorious Revolution, Parliament was granted the authority to, in essence, “check” the power of the monarchy. The internal shifts of power in Great Britain and the savvy foreign policy skills demonstrated by the British in much of the conflict happening in continental Europe can be credited with England’s rise to power.
The Revolutionary Policies of Henry VIII Henry was a supreme egotist. He advanced personal desires under the guise of public policy or moral right, forced his ministers to pay extreme penalties for his own mistakes, and summarily executed many with little excuse. In his later years he became grossly fat, paranoid, and unpredictable. Nonetheless he possessed considerable political insight, and he provided England with a visible and active national leader. Although Henry seemed to dominate his Parliaments, the importance of that institution increased significantly during his reign.
In late 1600’s, England was in turmoil from events as King Phillip’s War to the Bacon Rebellion. All this chaos caused disorder all throughout England but it reached its height in the 1680’s when King James's policies of religious tolerance was met with an increasing opposition. People were troubled by the king's religion and devotion to Catholicism and his close ties with France and how he was trying to impose Catholicism on everyone, preventing them from worshiping anything else. This made the Protestant unhappy. It was seen that the crisis came to its peak with the birth of the king's son, James Francis Edward Stuart in 1688. In 1688, the struggle for domination of English government between Parliament and the crown reached its peak in the Glorious Revolution. This bloodless revolution occurred in which the English people decided that it’s enough that they tolerated King James and his extreme religious tolerance
Ives, E.W. "Henry VIII's Will: The Protectorate Provisions of 1546-7." The Historical Journal 37, no. 4 (1994): 901-14.
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.
As George became the sole ruler of the British empire, he ignored or was ignorant of Machiavelli’s ideas of how to maintain his government and conquered lands. George began to emulate the 3rd Earl of Bute, John Stuart and trusted him as they had very similar opinions without quite thinking twice. Moreover, he also approved the new taxes on colonies that were very heavy
More knew that Cromwell had set he up, yet had no way of proving it and knew that no-one would believe him. Cromwell was hunting More for his beliefs not actions. People’s greed justified that they could go after More in order to get what they wanted.