The Main Strengths and Weaknesses of the Protectorate, 1653-1658
Cromwell was installed as Lord Protector in December 1653, and
throughout his time as Protector, Cromwell aimed to 'heal and settle'
the wounds of the past and to create a 'godly England'. However, by
the end of his life the Protectorate had the support of a narrow
population. Nevertheless, the Protectorate had various strengths and
weaknesses.
An evident strength of the Protectorate was the aim to achieve a
civilian based government as shown in Source 3, where Cromwell did
attempt to "make parliament representative" as well as to give
Parliament "a genuine role in the constitution". The system of
government was fairly stable, under the Instrument of Government, both
Parliament and Protector were to control the militia and a provision
was made for parliaments to be elected every three years and had to
sit for a minimum of three years. In addition, the Protector had to
rule with the Council of State, particularly in key matters such as
finance, appointment of senior ministers. Furthermore, the Humble
Petition and Advice accepted in May 1657 represented a compromise
between the Protector and Parliament. Thus, Parliament was regarded as
an equal partner as reflected by the banning of purges of the House of
Common. The Protectorate was moving towards the style of
constitutional monarchy, indicating stability and a country where
"peace reigned" as stated by Cyril Robinson.
A further strength of the Protectorate was the wide liberty of
conscience, where "many sects enjoyed complete freedom of religion" as
shown by Source 1. This meant that each individual would be able...
... middle of paper ...
... "the Protector himself had been to strong".
On the contrary, Michael Lynch believes that Cromwell never actually
"pushed his authority to the point where he had a genuine controlling
power". However, there is agreement in that Cromwell did attempt to
achieve "effective civilian government" and that "religious
difficulties were in a large measure overcome". But, it needs to be
taken into account that as Cyril Robinson is a Whig historian, this
school of thought portray as Cromwell as a strong dictator, which is
not necessarily a bad criticism. Overall, the Protectorate was
dependent on Oliver Cromwell, but not necessarily "wholly", because
Cromwell did have to work with Parliament in order to achieve a
settlement. But, the Protectorate did heavily rely on Cromwell's
personality and political as well as military skills.
Throughout Charles I’s Personal Rule, otherwise known as the ‘Eleven Year Tyranny’, he suffered many problems which all contributed to the failure of his Personal Rule. There are different approaches about the failure of Personal Rule and when it actually ended, especially because by April 1640 Short Parliament was in session. However, because it only lasted 3 weeks, historians tend to use November 1640 as the correct end of the Personal Rule when Long Parliament was called. There was much debate about whether the Personal Rule could have continued as it was, instead people generally believed that it would crumble when the King lost his supporters.
In conclusion, opposition to personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was very strong. Charles had criticism and opposition coming at him from all directions and angles. This therefore put him under serious pressure. The key are of opposition for Charles was ‘Thorough’. This was the key are of opposition because it applied to the whole country, and eventually Ireland. ‘Thorough’ made itself lots of enemies as it was so far spread. Most, if not all areas, disliked ‘Thorough’ due to the king and his minions Wentworth and Laud putting pressure on the local sheriffs to abide by the kings word more.
How were the seeds for self-government sown in the early colonies? Why was this important when England started to enforce rules (such as the Intolerable Acts)? Please give specific examples.
After King Charles I’s execution in January 1649, Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) became Lord Protector of the country. Oliver Cromwell was ruler of the country, with assistant of parliament from 25 December 1653, until his death, when his son Richard Cromwell took power. Cromwell wasn’t the king of the three kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland), but he had similar power. Over history it has been disputed whether he was a heroic, powerful saviour for the country, or an evil psychopath who took what they wanted. I have been looking at which one I believe that Cromwell was; a hero or a villain.
During the 1700s, Britain ruled over the colonies. The colonies had been discovered and settled by the British. The British believed that the colonies were British territories and were to be ruled as if they were British territories. The colonies did not like this. The Founding Fathers agreed that it was time for a change and sought to rebel from, and declare independence from the British. The Founding Fathers were justified in rebelling and declaring independence because the British rule had become oppressive, Britain was too small and too far away from the colonies to be in any position to rule over them, and the colonies had become large enough to become their own nation.
Between the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 and the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the most important change that occurred in the colonies was the emergence of society quite different from that in England. Changes in religion, economics, politics and social structure illustrate this Americanization of the transplanted Europeans.
his coronation. He was a young man coming up to the age of 18. He was
America was well-situated to break with the monarchy for a number of reasons. One was that the distance limited Britain’s capacity to govern the colonies. Another reason was that for more than a century, Americans had already been responsible for managing their own domestic affairs, including taxation and electing their own leaders.
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.
People had different views about Church Government based on their religious beliefs and social order. Some were deeply committed to reform of the Church along Puritan lines, there were some who disliked this idea and preferred the genuine affection for the tradition Anglican Church. While able to maintain parliamentary unity and the prerogative courts were finally abolished however they had failed to find an agreed way in reforming the Church. Religion was an important factor because as there were so many different denominations people were bound to have
Through the 15th and 18th century, Royal Absolutism was the dominant political structure in western society, and personified France and King Louis XIV.
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
In the time period leading up to 1700, American history was a time of tremendous settlement and establishment of colonies across the nation. In determining how the colonies were to be created, the settlers had to question how long they were going to live at these locations; as well as, which places were flowing with the resources and materials they were searching for. In this case, English settlers founded the New England and Chesapeake regions in the early 17th century; however, the two regions became different from each other as time passed, for each became distinct colonies by 1700. Although the English settled both New England and the Chesapeake region, these two regions differed in development because though both were ruled by an English
One of the main focus points in European colonization was to further their economic order by using abundant recourses that were found far from the home land. They looked to gain power and produce wealth. In order to reach these goals, Europeans directed cultural change among the indigenous people and justified their actions by claiming it was “God’s work”. However, with all of these changes came diverse reactions from the native people. In the beginning they were eager to build relationships, however after time passed many considered them as sons from the devil.
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.