The Stuart Monarchy And The Tudor Monarchy

The seventeenth century saw the evolution of two new types of government mainly because of the instability that was caused by religious wars. One type of government was a constitutional monarchy in which rulers were confined to the laws of the state, giving the people some liberties, best exemplified by William and Mary during the Stuart monarchial rule. Constitutional monarchy was successful in mainly in England because of the Magna Carta, which kept the king’s power in check. The other type was absolute monarchy, in which the king has power over everything, shown by the French under Louis XIV. Although these two

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.

(Blue) Although James had a much bigger army than William’s, lots of soldiers betrayed James and joined the other side; scared that they will kill him; he fled to France. (Harris) It was after the battle that they called it the glorious revolution, it was called glorious because in which religious and political problems were solved without bloodshed. February 2nd 1689 William and Mary were crowned as the first ruler where two people equally share the power. (Stuart) That year the English Bills of Rights were written which basically limited the power of the monarchs and that there are limits to what the King or Queen can do. William and Mary humbly accepted the document and signed, a new type of government also rose in which the people could choose who ruled their kingdom, and it was called a democratic government. (Stuart)

During the second half of the 17th century, there were many similarities and differences between the monarchy in England and France. These similarities and differences were seen in the theory and practice of the monarchies. In England, there was a Constitutional monarchy, while in France, there was an Absolutist monarchy. In the second half of the 17th century, absolute monarchs such as Louis XIV ruled in France, and William and Mary shared their power with Parliament in England. These two monarchies had differences theories and government, but they shared a similarity through the practice of mercantilism.

     Charles I considered himself to be an absolute monarch in England in the 1630¡¯s. A large portion of the parliament dislikes him because they wanted more of a say on the government and because the

James VI formed a new Stuart dynasty that replaced the Tudor rule. His rule as the king of England and Scotland affected the lives of millions of people all over Europe. Because of this, English Catholics becoming even more marginalized due to the Protestant King.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

The Tudor period is unique in that it is marked by succession difficulties in every generation. The Tudor dynasty was plagued by poor health, short-lives and a shortage of male claimants to the throne. For three successive monarchs the throne passed not from ruler to child, but from sibling to sibling and three consecutive monarchs died childless. Henry VIII's search for a suitable male heir to his throne had far reaching ramifications. This period is distinctive in that it would start the precedent of determining the succession by statute in consultation with Parliament. The parliamentary enactments and wills that he had created complicated the succession issue for future generations in the attempt to