The Political and Religious winds of The Seventeenth Century from Charles the First to Oliver Cromwell

The late seventeenth, the eighteenth, and the early nineteenth centuries saw political issues move away from religion and onto the issue of monarchies, especially of France and England. During this time, France’s power waned due to bad leadership while England’s, and later Great Britain's, power increased due to technology and overseas colonies.

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)

The concept of a ‘mid-Tudor crisis’ arrived under the scrutiny of modern scholarship largely through a priori reasoning and was first broadly promulgated by W.R.D. Jones in his 1973 book “The Mid Tudor Crisis1539-1563”. Jones attested a series of problems that “seem to have been ever-present in mid-Tudor England” (Jones, 1973, p. 6), exhibiting a “close relationship” (Jones, 1973, p. 6) with one another as a ‘crisis’. This compounded succession of agricultural volatility, deficiencies in administrative decree, specifically “the troubled shadowed reigns of Edward VI and Mary I,” (Jones, 1973, p.19) and divisive religious reformation, as Jones was to surmise, directly resulted in fluctuations

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

Religiously, rulers justified their actions by persuading the public that they were working in the name of God. Many english rulers used the excuse of divine right to justify their actions. The rulers announcement of their power given to them by God, made their actions justified. This was because, people would not stand up against any harsh actions in risk of going to hell. Due to the importance of religion in this time allowed rulers to use religion to their advantage when justifying their power.

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

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

The authors Tindall and Shi express how the new king was to be quite a challenge for the people of england, "Charles I, who succeeded his father, James, in 1625, proved to be an even more stubborn defender of absolute royal power. Like the French and Spanish monarchs, King Charles I preferred a highly centralized kingdom specializing in oppression and hierarchy." (Page 34) Further on in the chapter King Charles disbands parliment and raises taxes for defense. "In 1642...a prolonged civil war erupted." (Page 34) With a militant ruler taking over after Charles, England was dealing with some heavy issues concerning their monarchy. After the madness, England was brought some peace "Under the Bill of Rights, drafted in 1689, William and

Nationalism made the Catholics believe that Henry VIII was right to remove the pope even though they may not have agreed with Henry’s decisions. This change gave the Lutherans and other reformers great hope also, knowing now that their greatest rival, the pope, had been deposed. Unfortunately, other Englishmen who stood firm against the Act of Supremacy met strong opposition from the king. Soon after, another law was passed called the Law of Treason and Heresy. This law made sure that everyone recognized the king as the head of the church and more importantly, brought punishments to anyone who did not receive the king as the lawful head of the Church of England.

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.

In this essay I will be exploring the argument of whether religion was more important than politics in the failure of the interregnum regimes of 1649-1660 there are various arguments to be addressed.

Exile has played an important part in the story of Early Modern Europe, and in regards to England, it can be said to have bookmarked a large section of the dynastic period. The period began with Henry Tudor returning from exile to become king while at the far end James II taking flight into exile after the Glorious Revolution. In the middle of this time, exile is again demonstrated by Charles II managing escape abroad during the Civil War, returning in the restoration of 1660. With this in mind though it seems major elements in the history of the Catholic diaspora were neglected in studies of the Reformation, with previous research undertaken as being as Geert Janssen describes “piecemeal and antiquarian in nature”. Research tended to focus

It was turbulent times for England during the 17th and 18th century. England was in an unquenchable thirst for more power. “During the 17th and 18th century, England was determined to subdue all lesser countries, especially Ireland” (Stevenson, 28). At the time, England was the dominating country, looking to expand their influence across the world. War broke out constantly as the conquest for more land continued. Moreover, war was constant with the three kingdoms, England, Ireland, and Scotland. Revolts in each kingdom also affected the country’s ability to participate in the war. As

Henry VIII was the King that would change England’s religious system and make it his legacy. The religious system would carry on after his reign and become the predominant religion of England. The question is: How did events connected to key historical figures during Henry VIII’s reign cause for a permanent shift in the religious system of England? This question will be answered by analyzing events related to key historical figures during Henry VIII’s reign. These events will not be a biographical representation of any one historical figure, but relayed in connection to the topic of this paper in order to provide an answer for the essay question. This method is being utilized because it provides an analytical perspective, while also providing a personal appeal by tying the facts in with historical figures. History is not just facts, it is a story, and like any good story it should pull a reader in and make them interested. The historical figures utilized will be Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer due to their direct correlation to the change in the religious system of England. The sources utilized were chosen and implemented in relation to how they encompassed concepts related to historical

"John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Hazzard, and count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls barons, justiciars, sheriffs, ministers, bailiffs and all his faithful men, greeting."1 So begins the most famous legal document of the Middle Ages. The Magna Carta was a product of the power struggle between King John and his barons in the year 1215. Although it was intended to address concerns that were specific to its time and place, it became a high water mark of legal freedom for centuries to come. This essay will examine the events that caused the Magna Carta to be written, the key provisions it contains, and the effect it had on the law of England and