Buckingham's Grievances

After Charles was executed several political problems arose because there was no direction of settlement due to the degree and nature of the reform. As a result of this, two sides formed, the army who were religious radicals and parliament, who were after a conservative settlement. The result of the

The relationship and status of the monarchy in parliament’s eyes had already been in a state of decline even before Charles’ reign. His predecessor had been known as the ‘wisest fool in Christendom’ and there was a lot of resentment

Moving along, the Parliament automatically felt more dissatisfied with their relationship. The parliament detested Charles I because he believed the parliament was a “waste of space”. Importantly, he would refuse to converse with parliament for any government issues but use them if money was desired. These disagreements lead to the civil war. According to our class lecture, “The king must go to parliament to get money to start an army and gets rejected so he closes the parliament and declares himself the single ruler of parliament and this tactic fails because community respects the rules of the parliament. Charles is forced to flea and forced to have an army. Charles has a large army and the dismissed parliament must also raise an army. As a consequence of farmers and artisan of that English class is radicalized” Charles ruled the Parliament government by putting taxes on ships and other products to use for army purposes. When Parliament was not on board with the new taxation, while the king starting arresting members of the parliament madness broke through and civil war took place. Parliament decided to create an army on their own to defeat the king, which they were successful. They put the king

After this was when things started to get harder for Charles V. He was faced with Religious differences as a challenge to political authority. Charles V.

While the colonists had many grievances surrounding King George III the strongest grievance was his plan “To force colonist to buy English products” he had Parliament place high taxes on goods from other countries. The key word

After the end of the civil war, officers of the New Model Army, formed by Cromwell, decided to put Charles on trial. Parliament voted to negotiate with the King in order to come to a peace agreement, but that was met with a fierce rebuke from Cromwell and his army. In order to kill any hope for the King and to prevent any kind of compromise between the King and Parliament, one hundred and eighty members of Parliament were excluded, and forty five were imprisoned for showing resistance. This act of purging was described simply as a coup d'état. (23 Laughland) If the king is truly guilty and hated by his people, Cromwell wouldn’t have needed to perform this despicable action of arresting and barring Parliament members from their seats. At this point, the authority of Parliament that was supported by the Roundheads, over the King’s, has lost all its legality. Parliament became a military tool in the hand of Cromwell and his army. In addition to this, Cromwell’s son-in-law, Henry Ireton, was the one who submitted a request to prosecute the King, which was naturally accepted by the one third of the Parliament left. A court with the name of ‘High Court of Justice’ was formed to be responsible for the King’s trial. (103-104 TURCHETTI)

It emphasised the part political greed placed on individuals sparking rebellion as “a last-ditch attempt by those who were out of favour at court to restore their political fortunes by seizing on the discontents and puzzlements of others”. The Earl of Essex had gained a good reputation and worked his way up to be Elizabeth’s favourite courtier. However, he was short of money and so attempted to rule the court and oppose his rival Cecil which caused the Queen to turn against him. On one occasion during a heated Privy Council debate on the problems in Ireland, the Queen reportedly “cuffed an insolent Essex round the ear, prompting him to half draw his sword on her”. The incident meant Essex felt he had been publically shamed and was sent from court consequently losing all his influence at court. Political factions were central to the cause of this revolt as the Earl resented the influence that Robert Cecil had at court and thought by showing force in the form of a rebellion would lead the Queen to readmit him to court and to her favour. The Essex rebellion is very significant in showing how the corruption of the patronage system by Essex, and the dominance of Cecil, continued to affect politics after the Tudor period had ended into James’ I reign where political instability let to the Catholic dominated Main, Bye and Gunpowder plots. This underpins the argument that

In England, from about 1400 to 1700 there was a constant struggle between Parliament and the ruling monarch. During that time, there were six documents that tried to weaken or challenge the power of the monarch. One of these documents was the Petition of Right. The Petition of Right, although it did not last, challenged Charles I by stating that he could not levy taxes without Parliament’s approval, not declare martial law, not to quarter soldiers in private homes while during peacetime, and could not imprison someone without a valid charge. Another document is the Grand Remonstrance. The Grand Remonstrance was a list of grievances against Charles I. This lead to Parliament asking for control of the army. Although it was brutally denied, it

The colonial economy, geography, and politics had all been subjected to unfair consequences. The acts that were passed served as a way for England to push the responsibility its debt and issues on the colonists. If the colonists’ grievances were appealed, the colonists may have never rebelled against their mother

Repetitively, the authors announce the King’s crimes against the common man. The colonists cite him and his temperament as one of the grounds for which the want to separate. According to the authors, the King’s governance neglects an entire segment of his subjects -- the colonists. The authors showcase the King’s inability to cooperate with

In the second year of the insurrection against the Sheriff of Nottingham, the tide of events is turning against Robin Hood and his men. The revolt, which began as a personal crusade inspired by anger, is feeling the consequences of not having a long term strategy or plan. In order to be successful, key changes are necessary for Robin Hood and the Merrymen.

Those opposing the King detested Laud for his Arminian reforms in the Church of England. Unfortunately for Charles, this did tend to unite people against him. The problem was that Puritans and Calvinists who opposed the Arminian innovations had good reason to be concerned. Laud's changes were very Catholic in nature, including repositioning the altar so that staunch Puritans would say that the minister is blocking the route to God.

The colonists’ relation with England in the past times, specifically Great Britain, was unstable. The king or superior being

On January 1st of 1649, the Rump Parliament of England passed a mandate for the trial of King Charles I to which he would be charged with “subverting the fundamental laws and liberties of the nation while maliciously making war on the parliament and people of England.” After years of civil war and various failures in fulfilling kingly duties, Charles faced a trial against a strategically assembled English court that would choose his fate. This stands out in history as one of the most noteworthy and dramatic events in early modern England- a domestic political crisis unlike anything that had ever been seen before. Over the years historians have debated in how they characterize the king’s trial and its end result, referring to the execution as “a crime of the worst magnitude, a regrettable necessity, or a laudable challenge to either an individual ruler or the entire political system.” Due to the overall disapproval of the trial by prominent individuals, biased personnel assembled in the court, questionable legal legitimacy, improper court proceedings and unfortunate socio-economic circumstances during his reign, it can be concluded that King Charles I did not receive a fair trial.

Charles views the French revolution as too bloody. People are becoming like the rich, and not valuing people’s lives – exactly the opposite of what they were trying to get out of this revolution. They acted like crazy bloodthirsty animals, “the men were terrible, in the bloody-minded anger with which they looked from windows, caught up what arms they had, and came pouring down into the streets…” all the people thought about was killing all the rich ones, making them pay. Charles finds the violence, degrading the peasants to the sick level of the people.