King Charles Absolutism

A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France

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.

Louis XIV, the ruler of France from the late seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century, claimed, “I am the state.” He considered this to be absolutism. His goal, also acquainted with absolutism, was, “one king, one law, one faith;” Furthermore, Louis wanted to promote religious unity, royal dignity, and security of the state. In order to achieve this goal, he had to rule with a firm hand, laying down the law for all to see. Louis XIV’s absolutism fostered in four major parts: the building of Versailles to control the nobility, the breeding of a strong military, the improvement of France’s economy, and, while quite harsh, the brutal extinction of religious toleration.

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

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 English had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for so long that they were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person. The least influential, Charles I, was born in 1600 and died 1649 when he inherited the throne parliament was very upset with the monarchy and sought to lessen the power of the monarchy. Charles I tried to rule without consenting Parliament, but Parliament had so much control at the time that he failed to decrease its power. However, Charles believed in the divine rights of kings. Charles went on to oppress his people by levying taxes without the consent of the parliament. Many of his subjects saw him as a tyrannically oppressive leader. He created

Once the seventeenth century began, western civilization became based upon bounds. In a structured and shared-power system known as limited monarchy, rulers either became hastened within their bounds or exploded from them. As the British Isles were frustrated in the religious, political, and national voices going unheard, England developed a Protestant-run nation in conjunction with Scotland as a bounded country in 1707. Their Parliament would make their decisions, distribute the country’s wealth, and stand for the rights of individuals. The model of one man who could not be chained to a Parliamentary system was France’s King Louis XIV. His reign begins in 1643 which brings about the genuine definition of an absolute monarchy and it’s faults. Absolutism was a practice built heavily within the Middle Ages, it would include Kings as the primary shareholders of their land, partnerships with nobles and their Churches. It would prove unsatisfactory for most kingdoms as they failed under civil war and invasion until the seventeenth century shines a new importance on superior command. Through the strife of religious reformations and international conflicts, absolutism grants those in kingship unlimited power. King Henry IV had brought France from fifteenth century centralization and the Reformation’s civil war to cleanse the people’s doubt in their King. The Bourbons built a monarchy for the ages with their grandson Louis XIV, and Boy-King in 1643. Utilizing absolutism to accept

In 1670, Charles signed with France the Treaty of Dover, consenting to aid France against the Dutch and declaring that he would convert to Catholicism. If his people did not accept it, France would help him. In 1672, he issued the Declaration of Indulgence which suspended the punishments against nonconformists and Catholics. Yet, when the war with Holland started, the Parliament only accepted to vote for money if Charles withdrew the declaration. The anti-Catholic and anti-French spirit was deeply rooted in the Commons. In consequence, they passed the Test Act, which banned any person who hadn’t taken the Anglican Sacrament and made an official declaration against transubstantiation from holding a public office, civil or

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

During the reign of Elizabeth I, the Privy Council and court were the centre of the Elizabethan government. Although parliament was Elizabeth’s necessary method of legislation and raising taxes, it was far from being a regular part of the governmental system (only being called 13 times during her reign). A leading debate arose when the historian Sir John Neale argued that there was a considerable amount of conflict between MPs and the queen. Whereas revisionists, such as Graves and Sir Geoffrey Elton, challenged this view and argued that the relationship was one of co-operation. I agree with the views of Elton that over Elizabeth’s 46 year reign there was much success, however she faced a

Charles II, the son of absolute monarch Charles I was king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1660 to 1685. He was renewed to the throne of England after many years of exile during the Puritan Commonwealth. The Restoration period is known as the reign of Charles II. His political knowledge and versatility of men empowered him to drive England through the complexity of the conflicts between the Catholics, Anglicans, and dissenters that marked much of his reign. Charles II died in

As leaders turned over, King Charles began to rule over England. Both him and his wife Henrietta, a disciple of Christianity, caused great animosity toward the King (Stax 96). Not only was the man hated for his religious practices but, he also ruled with divine rights. Meaning, King Charles ruled through God’s actions. In a society established on Protestantism, Englishmen felt Christians were untrustworthy beings (Synan). Discovering a sense liberty, but more so, a religious freedom, the

Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism Royal absolutism is a state of government whereby the monarch rules supreme, with virtually no legislative power placed in other organisations such as Parliament. For the people of England in the 1630s, it was a very real threat. After the dissolving of Parliament in 1629, Charles I embarked on his Personal Rule. Without analysing whose fault the breakdown in relations was, it was probably the only thing Charles could do in the circumstances. Certainly, no dialogue with Parliament was possible.

He was an arrogant man, and believed that he did not need parliament, and thus raised money via other means. He revived existing revenue streams, for example, ship money. Formerly used in maritime counties to defend against attack, Charles adapted it to suit his needs. Initially used only in "exceptional circumstances", [Lindley, 1998] Charles extended it to inland counties as well in 1635, incurring a visible backlash, one notable instance in 1639, in the parish of Harrow. shows us how fierce the opposition had become since the taxes inception. It is an account of the seizure of possessions from non-payers of the tax in the parish of Harrow. "Mrs Miller of Pinner being distrained and a piece of cloth now in custody." [Lindley, 1998] All householders were liable, and even the most poverty stricken faced having their assets seized for refusing to pay. Without parliament, his subjects were forced into revolt as a means of voicing their displeasure. This was just one instance of many where the king faced resistance to his fiscal approach. This shows how Charles was ruthless, and perhaps naive in his approach. To be ignorant to the potential consequences of treating his subjects this way not only infers him to be greedy and hearltess, but also stubborn, arrogant and complacent. "Unfortunately, Charles lacked the adroitness to rule alone and soon alienated religious and political leaders in all three kingdoms." [Wallace, 2012] He believed after all he was the divine ruler, and was out of reach. His character put him above everyone, including those who were there to help him, for example parliament. It was partly this negative reaction to the ship money tax which led to Charles to recall parliament in 1640, showing Charles to be an erratic king, his arrogance perhaps leading to complete disregard for

The Magna Carta, also known as the “Great Charter”, is one of the best known political documents in history. It has influenced nearly every great document of note following it, including the Declaration of Independence written by the founding fathers of America. The Magna Carta was a direct result of the reigns of King Richard the Lionheart and his brother King John and was written by barons who wanted to protect their rights, albeit in a way that mostly benefitted them. Therefore, this paper will attempt to examine the historical context surrounding the Magna Carta, what concerns the document demonstrated about the reigns of Richard and John as exemplified by the demands within the charter, and how the Magna Carta changed the relationship