Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Charles and the parliament relationships
Charles and the parliament relationships
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Despite the simplistic fact that King Charles I was the legally lawful leader of England, Parliament was more than justified in executing Charles I due to the divergent and passionate views of law and life between the people and the king in politics, society, and religion.
Parliament never desired a position where they could control England with full-fledged power. They simply wanted enough limitations on the king’s power that would guarantee the people certain rights that the king cannot take away, which juxtaposes the belief of divine right. Parliament tried numerous ways to create a structured administration where the king’s power was restricted and Parliament, including the people that they represented, was given a voice in government but their countless tries were futile and a disappointment. Preceding the Civil War and many times after it, Parliament tried to approach the king to present to him their ideas of how power should be distributed and used. They came up with laws and regulations to resolve political problems with the king, such as the Petition of Rights, Nineteen Propositions, and Grand Remonstrance. The king declined to acknowledge these laws as genuine laws. He either signed and disregarded it or he absolutely refused to bother himself with the minor complaints of Parliament. This eventually led to the conclusion that King Charles I was the type of man who could not be trusted with the legal promises he made to his people. The worries of Parliament were not seen as a major concern of his and he repudiated to consider any negotiations with whatever Parliament had to say. The king’s intractable ways caused Parliament to break away from his power before England became a place of political disaster.
Although the obstinate king refused to recognize Parliament’s authorized power and influence, he turned his back on his Protestant country to form foreign alliances against his own people. If that wasn’t ghastly enough, the king acted in an outrageous and appalling way when he put religion into the conflict and made it worse. He asked for military assistance from the Catholic pope and agreed to certain terms that could have shattered his already-destabilized country. The king denied the fact that he had been defeated by his own subjects, and he did anything he could do in his power to prevent the loss of his throne. It is not right of a true and legitimate king to overlook his people and betray them in such a horrendous and unthinkable way as to destroy the pride of his country’s religion.
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his 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.
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.
...nts would not have happened if Charles I had not been eradicated from the throne of England.
There were several events that contributed to the Revolution of 1688. King Charles I attempted to create an absolute monarchy in 1630’s by dismissing the sitting Parliament. His actions resulted in the English Civil War, where Charles was easily overpowered by Parliament and was consequently captured by Cromwell and executed for treason. After the removal of Charles I, England entered a period of a “republic” where it was ruled by Oliver Cromwell, also known as the Lord Protector. Parliament offered Cromwell the position of king, but he refused in order to distance England from another monarchy. Soon after Oliver’s death, the Commonwealth attempted to name Cromwell’s son, Richard as his predecessor, but the people refused arguing that a theocracy would not be an improvement from the monarchial times. Charles II, the son of Charles was brought back from exile and appointed king in 1660.
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.
In England, the parliament because of this need, grew to have power over the king and cause great toleration of people's
Through the analysis of the document, ‘King Charls His Speech’, a number of questions and answers result. However, the question of why was Charles I executed is only briefly answered by Charles I’s speech itself, when Charles I states, ‘for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament.’ Despite this question only being briefly answered by King Charles himself, through his speech immediately before his death, a number of historians have given detailed reasons as to why Charles I was executed.
whether he really was trying to be a proud and brave king or he that
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.
"And although some [lawful kings]... very rarelie may be cut off by the treason of some unnaturall subjects, yet liveth their fame after them, and some notable plague faileth never to overtake the committers in this life, besides their infamie to all posterities hearafter" - James VI and I, Basilikon Doron (1603)
The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution changed the social ways of the Europeans. For one, Parliament protected the people by giving people more rights because King Charles made laws that were angering the Europeans, he wanted to make his own decisions. In the Petition of Rights, it states that, “by means whereof your people have been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them, upon their refusal so to do” (The Petition of Rights 1). Another social change is that Parliament was arguing about how King Charles didn’t give the people rights to make laws and statutes in England. Parliament wants to help the English ...
During this time, the Magna Carta was written and signed. This limited the power of the king and he had to earn approval by the lords before he could make a decision. It also made it so a law can only be passed if it doesn’t go against the Magna Carta. It also implies religion by helping with giving the Church full rights that allows
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.
Even though England had a monarchy it also had a Parliament that assisted the Queen in governing the country. The of House of Commons and the House of Lords were the two bodies of Parliament.. The House of Commons was comprised of people who were elected and the House of Lords was made of men from noble families. Parliament had three main functions; legislation, advice and, taxation. Even though Parliament had these powers the monarch could exercise