Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The English Restoration under Charles II
Essays about charles i
The absolutist England of Charles I
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The English Restoration under Charles II
James VI was born on June 19, 1566 at Edinburgh Castle and starred out the King of Scotland and then became the James I and was named the King of England. The Kingdoms of Scotland and England were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union. As a young boy he was the only son of Mary, who was the queen of Scotland, and her second husband, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. He was baptized “Charles James” on December 17, 1566 in a catholic ceremony held at Stirling Castle. James’s father was murdered on February 10, 1567 in Edinburgh. He then inherited his father’s titles of Duke of Albany and Earl of Ross. From that day on, he wore a heavy iron chain cilice around …show more content…
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 …show more content…
His parents were Charles I and Henrietta Maria and he was their second son and child. The first son was born about a year before Charles but died within a day. Charles was baptized in the Chapel Royal on June 27 by the Anglican Bishop of London. At birth, Charles automatically became Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, along with other associated titles. On his eighth birthday, he was designated Prince of Wales, though he was never formally invested. Charle’s English parliament enacted laws known as the Clarendon Code, designed to shore up the position of the re-established Church of England. Charles accepted the Clarendon Code even though he favored a policy of religious tolerance. He attempted to introduce religious freedom for Catholics and Protestant dissenters with his 1672 Royal Declaration of Indulgence, but the English Parliament forced him to withdraw it. Charles was popularly known as the Merry Monarch, in reference to both the liveliness and hedonism of his court and the general relief at the return to normality after over a decade of rule by Cromwell and the Puritans. Charles’ wife didn’t bore any live children, but he acknowledged at least twelve illegitimate children by various mistresses. Despite the Stewart family connections through Henrietta Maria and the Princess of Orange, France and the Dutch Republic allied themselves with Cromwell’s government from 1654, forcing Charles to turn for aid to
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
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.
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.
1637 as the Highpoint of the Personal Rule of Charles I Charles' personal rule started in 1629 after the second session of his third Parliament ended in arguments and disagreements between King and Parliament about the methods (tonnage and poundage) Charles used to generate personal income. Charles adjourned Parliament during this session and Parliament declared three resolutions that would force Charles into personal rule and isolation from Parliament and its wealth. Charles had to contend with a lot of problems in his personal rule. Most importantly was the issue of how to finance himself and the country without the availability of 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
Many operate under the principle referred to as the law of the land, which especially true of England and the Netherlands. This concept finds its basis on the ideas of the elected parliament as to their declarations of the precepts of the law as they view it. This particular reasoning evolved via the death of Charles Stuart, the king of England, upon his execution on January 30th, 1649. As a result, of the execution, England had no central ruler and the constituents of the House of Commons began the duty of transforming the government. Because the House of Lords opposed the trial of the tyrannical king, the House of Commons declared itself the ruling body negating any power the House of Lords possessed and thus, abolishing it. Consequently, the House of Commons maintained that it would become their responsibility to protect not only the liberty, but also the safe being, and the interest of the public at large, thus Parliament came into being (Lee, n.d.). Furthermore, they mandated that a single person having sole power presented a danger to the whole of the public welfare and the monarchy existence was figuratively only. Because of these acts, with the abolishment of the House of Lords and the monarchy as such, a contingency of forty-one members comprising the Council of State became the ruling authority establishing the laws of the
James from the Stuart House was the son of Henry VII and Mary Queen of Scots, who was executed by Elizabeth I because Mary supported the Catholics, England's enemies. After Queen Mary's death King James was raised as a Protestant and when he became old enough he was of age James VI, King of Scotland. Queen Elizabeth did not have any natural descendants, and James VI became James I of England after she died. The population hoped James would support the Catholics like his mother did, but this did not happen for his Pro...
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.
King John, also known as John Lackland, was born in December 24, 1167 and belonged in the High Middle Ages. He was the youngest son of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. They had eight sons together. When King II assigned provinces to his sons, King John received no share, which is why people in England stared to refer him as John Lackland. King Henry II died then his older brother, King Richard inherited the kingdom. Not long after he mysteriously died then King John inherited the throne. King John became the cruellest king in history. The barons Rebelled against him demanding him to sign the Magna Carta.
“Sir John the First, he was the worst.” This is a child's rhyme and yet a sentiment emulated by many well respected pieces of literature not only today but throughout history. Nearly eight hundred years later and he is still possibly the most notorious king in English history. However, was he really as bad as he is presumed to be? Stories such as Robin Hood and Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe would have you think as much. But, if these were wholly accurate then why would Winston Churchill have said “When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns”? John's family certainly didn't do much for England; they caused plenty of harm both to their nation and each other. Could John in his rule have actually done more good than his father or precious brother, Richard Coeur de Lion? At first it certainly doesn't look like it, but perhaps if one digs a little deeper they'll see that Winston Churchill's statement really is true.
...he gave birth to her only son James VI. After Henry died, she married the Earl of Bothwell, even after he was accused for the death of Henry (“Mary, Queen of Scots” par 6-12). They ran away together and formed an army to protect them and fight with them (“Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots” par 7-8). Mary had confusing and specified accomplishments in her life, many of which were marriage and her being a queen of many countries.
One of the key factors that led to the civil war was the contrasting beliefs of King Charles and the parliament. The monarchy believed in the divine rights of kings, explained by Fisher (1994, p335) as a biblically-based belief that the king or queen's authority comes directly from God and that he is not subjected to the demands of the people. On the other hand, the parliament had a strong democratic stance and though they respected and recognized the king's authority, they were constantly desiring and fighting for more rights to power. Although climaxing at the reign of King Charles, their antagonism stretched for centuries long before his birth and much of the power that once belonged to the monarchy had shifted over to the parliament by the time he came into power.
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.
James was born on June 19, 1566 at Edinburgh Castle. Since he was the only son of
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...