...the short term significance of the Long Parliament 1640-1642? The Long Parliament sat from 1640 to 1648 however it was the measures taken between 1640 and 1642 that had the most short term significance. The actions taken by parliament against the king’s ‘evil’ counsellors, the removal of the personal rule of Charles I, the increased role of parliament in conjunction with Charles, the growing support for the king, the religious divisions within parliament and the final breakdown of relations between the two branches of government were all prominent events between 1640 to 1642. The primary short term significance of the Long Parliament was the removal of the king’s ‘evil counsellors’ Strafford and Laud. Despite the impeachment of Archbishop Laud (December 1640) being important, the Strafford crisis was a much more pivotal short term consequence of the Long Parliament. Many of those in parliament and ordinary citizens were displeased with their actions such as the tyrannical imposition of the ‘Thorough’ or absolutist rule – they were men of ‘arrogant pride...deep policy, stern resolution and ambitious zeal.’ Albeit this view belongs to devout puritans Lucy and John Hutchinson, opinions from royalists concur with this as Lord Digby proves in the trial of Strafford (April 1641)that he believed him ‘to be the most dangerous minister’; hence proving that Strafford’s actions were abhorred by a variety of people, even those who supported the king. However there was some negligible support...
Words: 2011 - Pages: 9
...deteriation of Charles 1 and parliament? Finance was an important reason in why the relationship between Charles 1 and parliament deteriorated. This is in source A where it states the king was trying to make England a successful country yet without success. Source A also suggests that Charles 1 was unaware of what he was doing and as a result made himself an unpopular and feeble king. Source A continues to show signs of negativity towards Charles for example, his unexplained reasons for making such drastic changes to his subject’s everyday life. The evidence to suggest this is shown through source A’s quotes ‘reversed the practice of several decades’ and ‘reasons for the crowns pressing financial requirements were not spelt out’. Source A portrays Charles 1 as an unfit king for his public and parliament. It also demonstrates that parliament that parliament were not satisfied with the kings changes to society simply because Charles didn’t give any stable reasons for requesting them. Source B doesn’t mention finance at all. Therefore it does not imply any importance of finance. There are also no quotes in source B to suggest finance was significant however it highlights politics, religion and foreign policy as more of an issue. Source B evidenced this through the quotes ‘legal, constitutional and religious issues’ and ‘Charles’ behaviour tended to divide rather than unite the political elite. These quotes demonstrate that finance was not an important issue and instead Charles introducing...
Words: 1810 - Pages: 8
...In November 1640 the English Parliament was summoned by King Charles I, after the Short Parliament in 1637 that lasted for three weeks this one was very hopeful to outlast the other. King Charles summoned the Parliament back because his money problems were not yet solved. This new Parliament were unfriendly to the King, they demanded that he removed Lord Strafford and Archbishop Laud and punish them for what they have done. The king complied and did as Parliament asked, shortly after both the men were executed. After this the Parliament still wanted to make sure that the king would never again have absolute power. The king of course did not agree with this but he wasn't the only one, radical members of Parliament wanted take away his powers...
Words: 253 - Pages: 2
...Where the actions of Charles the 1st the main reason for the political instability that existed in the years 1625-46? (20 marks) There are many arguments that would support the statement but also many arguments disagreeing with the statement, saying it was things such as decisions made by parliament that moreover where responsible for the political instability. Firstly a reason why people may agree with the statement and say that it was in fact Charles who caused the political instability may say that it was because of things he did such as raising ship money without parliament’s approval, this lead to the 5 night’s case. The 5 nights case occurred after Charles 1st forced a loan on his subjects telling them to "lovingly, freely, and voluntarily" to give him money, he did this after his increasing fear of running out of money. After the forced loan, when most of his subjects disobeyed and refused to pay, Charles arrested 67 of those representatives for their refusal to pay. Charles did not bring any case against these men in court for fear that the judges might decide against the Forced Loan's legality, after this, outraged by the imprisonment 5 of the 67 arrested took Charles to court and applied to the Court of King's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus which was to report an unlawful detention, however the result of this was parliament siding with Charles and imprisoning the 5 Nights. This may have caused political instability as this shows that Charles did not like to take...
Words: 1209 - Pages: 5
...Puritan so when Charles I married Henrietta –princess of France- the people where furious because she was a catholic. The people thought because the queen was catholic they king would also change his religion and change the churches of England so that they would look more like catholic churches. Most churches in England were becoming too similar to the Catholic Church as they started to place candles and crucifixes around the church. The normal church did not have any decorations or crucifixes. The people are afraid that his wife could change his mind and make England a catholic country like it once used to be. Charles I is not able to please everyone he won't be able to win because some people are catholic and some are Protestants, he cannot be both. Secondly I will talk about money, I believe the lack of money that Charles I had led to the outbreak of the civil war because Charles kept demanding tax from the people, he taxed the people heavily and refused to take parliaments advice. He used this tax for the army and wars but he also collected it at times where it was not needed. People thought that he was getting to powerful because he was collecting tax without parliaments permission but when questioned Charles said that he is king by divine right and that he has the power to shut down parliament. Charles needed to have discussed the tax matter with parliament but he did not. Charles used ship money when he no longer had parliaments support. Parliament put the blame on...
Words: 788 - Pages: 4
...Wendy Kofi Adu “Charles I’s demand for the Forced Loan of 1626 was purely a political measure” Explain why you disagree or agree with this view. Charles I’s demand, in 1626, for the Forced Loan, was not a political measure, but undoubtedly a financial one that happened to have political advantages. King Charles, after only one year of reign, was threatened by an impending war with Spain and France, and this was the reason why he was in a desperate need of money. Following the disastrous and embarrassing expeditions to Cadiz, where the poorly equipped English soldiers got drunk and began fighting with each other, and later on at La Rochelle, personally led by Buckingham, where besides the lack of reinforcements and provision from the motherland,...
Words: 1180 - Pages: 5
...Political Absolutism/ Absolute Monarchy – France Constitutional Monarchy – England Steps Toward Political Absolutism in France: King Henry IV – 1) elected the Duke of Sully (Maximillian de Bethune) to reduce French debt that accumulated during fighting between Catholics and French Protestants (Huguenots) during the Age of Religious Wars. 2) Brought religious fighting to an end by granting the Huguenots religious toleration via the Edict of Nantes, and 3) Strengthened political power of the French Monarch by limiting the power of the nobility over the regional parliaments. Louis XIII – was assigned Cardinal Richelieu, by his mother Marie de Medici, as his personal advisor, when he was too young to rule at 9. Because of her inept capabilities to rule, Louis XIII, at 23, helped Richelieu send his mother into exile after which the king gave full support to Cardinal Richelieu to run the French Government. Richelieu succeeded in further strengthening the power of the monarch by 1) destroying the castles of the nobility and 2) crushing the political power of the Huguenots, who surrendered their fortified cities, military and territorial rights for religious toleration via the Peace of Alais (1629). 3) Finally, Richelieu transferred power from the nobility to royal elected officials through his creation of the intendant System. Louis IX – was assigned Cardinal Mazarin at the age of 3 as his personal and financial advisor and Prime Minister at the request of Louis’ mother...
Words: 1365 - Pages: 6
...How far do you agree that the character of Charles 1 is most important in understanding the King’s decision to rule without parliament in 1629? By Andy Todd Charles 1 was a stubborn, austere and arrogant king. He was also shy, young and inexperienced when he took to the throne in 1925 at the age of just 24. He suffered from a stutter which is seen as one of the main reasons why he was known as a poor communicator. Tying in with his supposedly weak character was something which made him even more arrogant and stubborn. This was his belief in Divine Right; a theory that was drilled in to him by his father King James 1 which meant that the God had blessed him so he could be a completely autocratic ruler. However, it’s not possible to believe that it was purely Charles’s personality which led to him resorting to personal rule on March 2, 1629. Charles 1 was a very loyal person who was known to become very attached and very trusting of one or two particular people. This lead to him making the despised Duke of Buckingham is closest advisor, as the Duke had been very close to Charles’s father, Charles trusted him completely. However, the Duke led Charles into a disastrous foreign policy. In 1628, Sir Edward Coke stated that the Duke of Buckingham was ‘the cause of all our miseries’, ‘the cause of all evils the kingdom suffered, and an enemy to the public’. The Duke, in 1625, had led the Cadiz expedition to attack Spain. The army landed on the coast, got drunk, and had to be evacuated...
Words: 700 - Pages: 3
...The Fall of King Charles I of England Idrees Kazi 500577940 HST 632 Dr. John Morgan Wednesday, March 12, 2014 Charles I remains one of the most debated monarchs of English history. His turbulent reign ended with a public execution. It seems as though the answer is simple, that he was a terrible king. And yet, historians argue many sides, some even favoring Charles. In fact, the reason behind Charles’ beheading is still kind of unclear. Of course he made mistakes, but then so does every monarch. Yet, Charles was the first king to be legally tried and executed. And in the 17th century, when the King was seen as God’s lieutenant on earth, executing one was unimaginable. This essay will explain why the regicides executed Charles. But first, it’s important to know a bit about Charles. Charles is known to be rigid and insensitive1 and the reason for this is partly because of his extreme belief in the Divine right of kings. He thought that God would always protect him. This can even be proven because of his inflexibility during the civil war, even while he was losing. “No matter how generous the terms or desperate his condition, the king refused to yield.”2 Charles’ personality and thinking caused more problems than they solved, and this will be proven in this essay. For now, it is important to know that the regicides believed it was necessary to kill Charles I because of his tyrannical rule, which can easily be proven by looking at his Personal Rule. The infamous...
Words: 2659 - Pages: 11
...Execution of Charles I Illegal, that (in my opinion) would be the best way to describe the process leading to Charles’ execution. Then again aren’t some of the best political movements illegal to begin with? There is the argument, should they have executed the King only to have a new king in the future, unlike France when the King was overthrown that was the end of royalty. Instead they took most of the monarch’s rights and put a new king on the throne (England seems to follow some sort of middle way in the end). The first procedure of the execution was a trial. There were 286 Members of Parliament, out of those 286, 240 thought Charles should have been given another chance. When Parliament was to meet for discussion those 240 were stopped by Oliver Cromwell’s troupes from entering Parliament. This left 46 Members of Parliament to decide what to do with Charles and by 26 to 20 votes, it was decided that Charles should be put on trial. Then 135 top judges and lawyers were chosen to try him. Due to the fact that 260 out of the 286 Members of Parliament disagreed with the trial this was the first ‘illegal’ part of the trial. On Saturday 20 January, 1649 Charles was brought to court by armed soldiers. This was the first day of the trial, yet only 67 out of the 135 appointed judges turned up. Charles was charged as being a tyrant, traitor and murderer. Charles was also charged for all the murder, burning, raping, damage and desolation caused during the wars against Parliament. He was...
Words: 1127 - Pages: 5
...On September 15th, 1643 The Cessation of Arms was signed, which allowed the Irish army whose chief was Marquis of Ormond to join the Royalist army. Ireland would give money troops and other materials to King Charles. While King Charles would give Ireland back land that was previously taken and religious independence. While that was going on also in 1643 the Scots joined Parliament. The Scots stayed away from the English Civil War but eventually Joined Parliament in a treaty called Solemn League and Covenant to form the Presbyterian Parliament. On September 19th , 1643 Royalist and Prince Rupert went to Newbury blocked the roads to London trapping the Parliament and forcing them to fight the battle lasted once again longer than expected and...
Words: 268 - Pages: 2
...(Catholic dynasty started by James I) began to rule. * The Stuarts believed in the 'divine right of kings' - ie, the God ordained that the King is supreme, and is thus 'above the law'. This plunged England into civil war. * The civil war seen as a 3 way dispute by the lawyers. The Parliament, the King and the common law were all vying for ultimate power. * Eventually, Charles I lost the struggle and was executed in 1649. * The civil war and the ideas that rose up during it led to constitutional change in England and development of lots of ideas that influenced the colonies like Australia. The king versus the common law In 1598 (before he was King of England), James I wrote The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, setting out the divine right of Kings. * He was supported in this idea by the attorney-general, Francis Bacon. * Bacon argued that that according to natural law, only absolute monarchy could avoid 'confusion and dissolution'. This theory was based on the natural law theory that law is based on reason and the will of the Crown. * According to Bacon, the King could govern by prerogative alone – parliamentary powers allowed only by tolerance of the King – he could dismiss or convene Parliament as he saw fit. * The power not to be dismissed without its consent was what Parliament really wanted – and only force through the civil war gave them that. * James I: “Kings are justly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Divine power upon...
Words: 2571 - Pages: 11
...Crown and Parliament. Explain why you agree or disagree with this view? (25 marks) Between 1625-1629, Parliament and Crown had many disagreements over financial issues. However, although these issues were important, other factors such as Religion, Buckingham and Foreign Policy caused further rifts between the Crown and Parliament. These arguments led to Charles dissolving Parliament in 1629 as he claimed ‘No sooner therefore was the Parliament set down but these ill-affected men began to sow and disperse their jealousies, by casting out some glances and doubtful speeches’. Even though finance was a major issue perhaps it was Charles persistence of Royal Prerogative that was the causation of Parliament being dismissed. Charles believed in the divine right of Kings, that he had been appointed by God to rule England at that his authority was absolute and could not be challenged because to challenge him was to challenge God. This meant he no longer needed Parliament leading to the ‘11 year Tyranny’. Financial matters were a reoccurring problem throughout all three Parliamentary sessions. The trouble started in 1625 when only a small amount of subsidies were granted to Charles along with Tonnage and Poundage voted only for 1 year. Tonnage and Poundage was the taxation which English citizens had to pay to fund the Crown. This was extremely unusual as usually Parliament granted Tonnage and Poundage for the whole reign of the Crown. This cautious approach by Parliament was partially...
Words: 1350 - Pages: 6
...when most of Europe was ruled by absolute monarchs. An absolute monarch is a king or a queen with unlimited power. Some advantages of absolutism are quick decision making, good rulers, and an important force of unity. According to an article, “In Absolute Monarchy; the property is protected, industries are encouraged and art is developed. The monarch is like the parent of his subjects. An enlightened monarch can do much good for the people.” Disadvantages of absolutism include; less freedom, little say in government and a potential of tyrants to become leaders. “Since the Monarch stays in office till life, he can implement his policies for a longer time. The Government is stable in a Monarchy and changes do not take place very often. The Age of Absolutism took place around the 1600’s to the 1750’s. This is the period after exploration, providing European nation with overseas empires. Kings began to strengthen their power and become absolute monarchs. At this time there was a lot of external conflict in religion, wars and revolutions. People were desperate for a change and felt that someone powerful would make their communities improve quickly....
Words: 747 - Pages: 3
...King Charles I's trial and, rather "sudden" death in 1649 after Parliament’s victory during the time of the Civil War was led and customarily viewed as the outstanding beginning of an age that reigns that ended with the recovery of the sovereignty in 1660. In Tyrannicide Brief, Geoffrey Robertson says, " But it has been the British way to vaguely ignore the Republic, to deplore the prosecution of the King and to pretend that the whole liberty dates from what is dubbed.. ‘the Glorious Revolution’ of 1689..." (24) Which was a great reminder of the prejudice times that were occurring that involved the significance of Charles. For a brief outcome, the days before the French Revolution, Geoffrey Robertson construed the legitimate democracy that was portrayed in England in those times, which included all of the constitutional guarantees for religious and governmental freedom. Many democracies during the twentieth century were completely involved with the court of parliament and the independence from irrational arrest. In the 1640s, the pressure that occurred at intervals of the court and king over the tariff drove them to the appeal of the Magna Carta and the independence of those individuals involved with the law that lied beneath it. When Charles adequately affirmed war on his own, he caused the...
Words: 867 - Pages: 4
