King Charles I 's Reign

Charles II (reigned 1660 - 1685) helped to grow English power in the Americas and Asia through marriages, alliances, and land grants, essentially taking over land that other nations had once owned.

In 1642 most people thought that King Charles would win the civil war, as he had won the battle of Edge hill, but unfortunately King Charles did not take advantage of this opportunity and marched to London. King Charles didn’t know what to do when it came to big decisions, in my opinion I believe he was indecisive with a weak personality, which was one of the main reasons why King Charles lost the English civil war. One of the mistakes that Charles has done is that he left leaving London. Without having

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

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

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.

Answer: When Henry VIII was too young, Richard Foxe helped manage England for him. Henry started an alliance with Charles V of Spain and both nations started a war with France. Henry went against the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the English Church. Elizabeth I was jailed in the tower of London under suspicion of supporting the rebels against her sister Mary. Elizabeth defeated the Spanish Armada, in return making England the new superpower in Europe. Elizabeth rebuilt England 's economy and passed the religious unity act which made England to be the first protestant nation. Both Monarchs fought Rome over religious control in England, they

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)

Generally, the English people had a great celebration when Charles II returned to the throne in May of 1660.1 Many believed that restoring the monarchy was the only way to secure constitutional rights. In fact, there was an expectation that bringing back the king would return life to the way it was before 1642 and the rule of Cromwell. Charles II was responsible for improving the government for the people. However, despite some achievements, the king was not very successful in creating a stronger and more effective monarchy. He was dependent on his advisors and other parts of the government from the very beginning of his reign. There were constant conflicts between the king and

There were three kings named Clovis, Charlemagne, and Alfred. They were all successful during their reigns within Europe. However, King Charles was the best ruler according to the model of early medieval kingship. One may ask what the model of early medieval kingship is. Well, a ruler to be considered the best would have to be a great conqueror, warrior, and defender of Christianity. King Charles during his rule was able to ascertain all three of these prerequisites for being a great ruler. Therefore, I will compare and contrast him, and his reign, to Clovis and Alfred to support my statement. I will also touch on how audience’s perceptions may be misguided due to the king’s biographers. I will begin the next paragraph examining King Charles exploits and why he fits the criteria of the best ruler.

There has been a considerable debate on whether King Charles I brought about his own downfall. Many people have argued that Charles wasn’t to blame, but rather religion or that it was the growth of parliament, however some people believe that there were a number of problems before he began his reign over England, all of which led to the Civil War and Charles’s execution on the 30th January 1649.

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

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 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.

After Charles the second died his brother, James the second gained the throne in 1685. His main objective was to re-establish the Roman Catholic religion in England. The people of England were mostly of a Protestant religion and they did not want to change their ways. Oddly enough