The Revolutions Of Thomas Hobbes And Charles I In The 17th Century

In 1957, Lord Darnley was murdered and Queen Mary was forced to renounce her throne. He made her son King of Scotland. He became the official King of Scotland when he was one year old. James was a devout scholar who studied the English language. The kingdom was strong and centralized during his rule, and he eventually married Anne of Denmark. He was a devout Protestant, and fought against the Puritans who tried to get rid of Roman practices in the church. He was not liked much, because of favoritism, and his schemes to get an alliance with Spain. During his rule, William Ruthven, one of the leaders of the Church of Scotland, kidnapped James, and held him captive for almost a year. When James finally escaped, he did not take any more chances, and executed William. With Queen Elizabeth the First aging, James realized that he had the highest chance of becoming the King. The only problem was that his mother, Mary, was still in live. She was prosecuted, and then executed. Once Elizabeth died, we move onto the chapter of King James’ life.

The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Upon the death of beloved Queen Elizabeth in England, her cousin James I was announced the new king of England. As a Catholic from the rival nation Scotland, King James I was inherently distrusted by his Anglican subjects, and his guarded, haughty personality only further decreased his popularity (Matthew). King James was also known for his strong belief in the Divine Right of Kings, in which the king is second only to God (Matthew). However, his greatest disadvantage was that he was previously Catholic; the English were never truly confident in his conversion to the Anglican Church (Matthew). Skeptical,

When it comes to human nature, many people like to make their own philosophies. They talk about what people think, or why they would say things. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two philosophers that had opposing ideals - ideals about revolutions, and how people would behave in trying to make their own governments. I will be talking about Thomas Hobbes. His belief was that people could not always get along in harmony, that they would always try and one-up each other, and people would always end up on top somehow. I believe these ideals apply more strongly to revolutions, as well as human nature in general, than Locke’s.

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.

Thomas Hobbes was a proponent of the monarchal system and in this paper I will prove that Hobbes was right in supporting the monarchal system of government, I will also show the opposing school of thought, and finally, I will give you my opinion on the monarchal system. Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588-1679 and throughout most of his life there was violence going on all around him. The biggest case was the English Civil War. This war lasted about seven years and it overthrew the monarchy, which England had established many years before. After this revolution, shaky governments ruled the land for several years. But then, the English went back to the monarchal system. These times shaped Hobbes’ views

Influential philosophers were not uncommon in the seventeenth century. Two British political thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, though opposite in many ways, both had one shared legacy: both men greatly influenced the politicians of America and laid a foundation of what would one day become the American government. While both men did some heavily influencing, they too witnessed events that forged their worldviews. Hobbes began writing after the English Civil War where King Charles I was beheaded, and the civil government came to an end. It was then that Hobbes concluded that humans do not possess the capabilities to live at peace with one another. Locke wrote considering the Glorious and Bloodless Revolution where King James II of England was ousted and there was no considerable violence. When learning about their theories on government, it is crucial to consider these factors to understand the context and reasoning behind them.

At that time, Charles I was married to a Catholic woman, and thus his people did not trust him and suspected him of trying to bring them to civil war, a fight between Protestants and Catholics. Charles’ relationship with religion was a strained partnership that caused many issues and problems, and was somewhat unwieldy. In the case

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.

How far was Charles I responsible for the breakdown in relations between the crown and parliament between 1625 and 1629? Charles I can easily be held responsible for the breakdown in relations between crown and parliament. Besides his stubborn character, his actions were entirely provocative, for example the forced loan and imprisoning those who refused to pay it. However, Charles’ actions were not much different to any other monarch who was gifted the throne under the premise of divine right. Instead, the rules of governing were changing and parliament were gaining confidence to challenge royal authority.

Charles I grew up in parliament, learning about how it worked and participating in it. Deciding to rule without parliament seems uncharacteristic, especially since Charles spent much of his time learning about and working with it. The switch from working with parliament to dissolving several parliaments between 1625 and 1629 can be attributed to Charles’s heightened sense of responsibility and the notion that parliament was not upholding its own responsibility to govern the people. Charles attempted to break from parliament for a time in order to stabilize a country weakened by war by establishing an absolute monarchy, and failed to maintain the break because of a lack of money. In order to succeed in preserving his personal rule, Charles would

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

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