How Far Was Charles I Responsible For The Relationship Between Crown And Parliament

in 1629. It was symbolic of a time when the King felt that any joint

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

With the state of relations between King and parliament at an all-time low, the last thing needed was more criticism to an already weakened king, who had just agreed to the Triennial act of 1641 which meant parliament would be called at least every three years. Despite this, Pym and his supporters presented the Grand Remonstrance; a list of 160 grievances and misdeeds of Charles. This in itself was something proposed by Pym and was almost mocking Charles with his “divine right of kings” ideal now appearing obsolete. This may have proved a last straw for Charles, who would have been building a great sense of anger with Parliament and more specifically with Pym.

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.

Throughout history, authentic sources have made kings seem like, either, tyrannical beings or beings that have turned a country over from a depressed past. Who the citizens celebrated or detested, but were too scared to protest because the power of the king was too overbearing to challenge his authority. King Charles II was the king of England from 1630 to 1685, and during his reign the citizens of England criticized him for his efforts, or lack of in his governing. Sir George Savile, a member of Charles’ Privy Council, in an essay, used rhetorical devices to portray King Charles II as an ordinary person, that gets to live the life of royalty.

     Charles I considered himself to be an absolute monarch in England in the 1630¡¯s. A large portion of the parliament dislikes him because they wanted more of a say on the government and because the

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

Rulers of European countries during the 17th century had almost unlimited autonomy over their respective countries. They were the head of government in all respects, and all decisions were eventually made by them. However, along with this autonomy came responsibility in the form of the people. If the decisions of these rulers did not improve the country, the possibility existed that their power would be either curbed or taken away by the people. As ruler of England in the early 17th century, Charles Stuart believed strongly in absolute power and a king’s divine right to rule. He believed that a king was given his power by God and therefore had no reason to answer to the people. The Parliament in England at the time

It is not wrong to assume that the consequence of the reigns of Charles and James II was to lead England to be Tory –for some time, at least- and Anglican rather than Francophile and Catholic. Both Charles and James II had sympathies for Catholicism, and England had had a tense and problematic relationship with Roman Catholicism since the reign of Henry VIII. This tendency and the relationship of Charles with Louis XIV contributed greatly to the ever-increasing hostility towards France and Catholicism.

King Charles I’s reign was unsuccessful, because he was unprepared to take on Scotland, England, and Ireland, each with its own political and legal structures. He was under the influence of bishops, priests, and friends who pulled him different directions in regards to war, religion, and economy. King Charles I’s was foolish and failed to rule England with an absolute monarchy, because he formed poor relations with the Protestant majority of Parliament, he raised and created new taxes, and he lost support of Scottish nobility.

Although the Declaration was met with the Test Act, which had consequential effects upon England’s government, Charles was able to establish his supremacy ecclesiastically over Parliament. Both Authors recognize the failure of this document but still believe it was a smart move for Charles to attempt to keep peace in England. Bate thought that the penal laws enforced by Parliament were relentless and inhumane. Hutton views on Parliament were slightly different. Hutton interpreted Parliament’s Act of Uniformity as a way of restoring order to the government. While their opinions about Parliament’s Act are different, they both agree that Parliament is limiting the power of the throne: ecclesiastically and politically. The Declaration of Indulgence did successfully grant religious tolerance to Catholics and Protestants. After the creation of the Test Act, all non-anglicans lost the right to hold civil or military office. In conclusion, both authors agree that the Charles’s domestic policy, the Declaration of Indulgence, was successful but not to the extent he had been

After 1629, the country became particularly distrustful of the King. Charles' problem was he was an inept ruler whose belief in such ideas as the Divine

Charles made many mistakes during his reign, one of which was when the Scottish were rebelling against the king, Charles made a new tax to pay for the army and declared war on the Scots. This was an extremely foolish decision as he could have gone to parliament and asked for their help to deal with the Scots, so then the Scots were dealt with and Charles would have been re-united with parliament. Another bad decision that he made was in 1640 parliament offered him to re-join forces but instead he closed them down again.

By trying to arrest the 5 MP’s in January 1642 in the House of Common with an army of 400 soldiers, the King rose suspicion that he was trying to dismiss the Parliament once again. As the Parliament feared that it will happen, they tried to limit the King’s power by taking the control over the royal army and by voting to throw the bishops out of the House of Lords. Some moderate MP’s were beginning to become worried about the fact and went to support Charles with the belief of possible chaos if they do not do this. The Parliament took over the army to fight against the Irish without consulting Charles as they feared he would turn against