The Restoration Under Charles II Essay

I believe Charles thought he could do what he want, and govern according to his own conscience even at a time where England was a very intolerant country - as many people still hated Catholics and their ideas. Charles also heavily believed in the Divine Right of Kings - the belief that God had appointed him to be King, which I think would have contributed to the conspiracy formed by the Protestants that the King was leaning towards Catholicism. This would have given King Charles more motive to refuse to sign the Grand

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

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.

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)

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

Hobbes, you are adamant in the claim that an absolute monarchy is the best type of government. However, it is clear that too much power in the hands of one individual will lead to corruption. You believe that people are prone to corruption and wrong deeds. With power solely rested on the divine rulers shoulders, should he fail, the nation will crumble. This kind of government could be toppled very easily, and a lack of a stable system set up in place should the monarch die would mean chaos would run rampant throughout the nation.

"The reign of Charles II and the revolution against his brother James show that England in the later seventeenth century was ready to be Tory and Anglican but not Roman Catholic and Francophile." Discuss.

Following the five knights case, parliament believed their rights and liberties were being attacked, and so in 1628, the Petition of Rights was drawn up which would define royal powers and prevent Charles from interpreting his royal prerogative as he wished. Charles saw this as an attack on his authority and felt as though parliament were undermining his position as king. In this way, parliament can be held responsible as this action led to increased tension between themselves and the crown. This is also a further factor that supports the idea that the way in which England was governed was changing, as before, such attacks on royal power were rare. The developing rules of governing can be blamed for the breakdown in relation in this way as such opposition to the monarchy was only a recent development.

Ronald Hutton, the author of Charles II King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, believes that the Declaration of Indulgence was the key to keeping England unified. Hutton also believes that the Cavalier Parliament was attempting to bring England back to a pre-reformation era. In 1662, Parliament established this by

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 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.

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

Born at Ghent, 1500; died at Yuste, in Spain, 1558; was a descendant of the house of Hapsburg, and to this descent owed his sovereignty over so many lands that it was said of him that the sun never set on his dominions. Charles was the son of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, by Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and Burgundy was the first heritage to which he at his led, on his fathers death in 1506. As he was a minor at that time, his aunt, Margaret of Austria, undertook the regency for him. William of Chièvres, his father's chief counsellor, had charge of the prince's household; Adrian of Utrecht, the Humanist and professor of theology at Louvain, who undertook his education,

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