Constitutionalism in England in the 17th Century

By the close of the 17th century, England had developed into a Constitutional Monarchy and France had developed into an Absolutist, centralized form of monarchy.

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

During the 16th and 17th centuries it is clear and evident that the centralization of power, or the absolutism in and hierarchy, does in fact induce stability in society, however, it is also evident via the given readings that absolutism also had its flaws which were later proved to be its downfall. It essentially all boils down a single concept of the people versus government. This is evident in the history of the French prior and leading up to the Révolution. In addition to, the monarchy of the English under King James VI and I’s rule. As complicated as the nature of government is, when power or authority is concentrated excessively into a single point, the society will crack by that very same point if a healthy relationship between citizen and ruler is not established. One cannot expect to bully and undermine one’s citizens without considering the possibility that one day they will rise up against him or her and “religious” masks can only be worn for so long before people recognize the hypocrisies present within them. Both of these truths are evident as seen in the given texts. Specifically, with The Great Cat Massacre, On The Social Order and Absolute Monarchy, by Jean Domat, and Trew Law of Free Monarchies, King James VI & I.

Throughout Thomas Paine’s argument towards Britain and the effects of England’s monarchy on America. There are many times in which he talks about the constitutional monarchy at the time. Going in depth on his feelings towards the legislative principle of the constitutional monarchy in England. As well as, the type of legislative principles that he advocates for America. Including, the ways in which the continental congress differed from the constitutional monarchy in England.

Occasionally celebrated with ceremonial tributes to an earlier period of history, today’s constitutional monarchies sometimes mark such affairs with the pomp and circumstance associated with an altogether different era.

When studying the Tudor courts, one area that remains to be a source of controversy is the idea of faction at the court of Henry VIII and within this assertion, the role faction played in determining key policies and decisions, thus influencing Henry VIII. Within the context of this controversy, faction can be defined as internal dissention within Henry’s court, creating small groups and organisations that fight to influence the King’s decision making process. When exploring the idea that Henry VIII was controlled by factions, there are three events during the King’s reign, which suggest that faction was highly influential and prominent: the fall of Cardinal Wolsey, the fall of Anne Boleyn and the fall of Thomas Cromwell. It is

During the seventeenth century, England experienced periods of growth and decline due to the presence of absolutism in the government. The weaknesses of England’s absolute monarchies led to the creation of the constitutional monarchy, which remains as England’s form of government in modern times. Through influential events such as the English Civil War, the Restoration, and the Glorious Revolution, England made reforms to political hierarchies.

During the late 1600s, King James II ruled England by absolutism. Under an absolutist government, the king was given more power allowing him to make laws and decisions without the consent of the Parliament. Throughout his reign, James was abusing

Oliver Cromwell was known for being a successful politician. He was an English military leader and thanks to his power he helped the Puritan be victorious during the Civil war. Oliver was recognized as the most powerful man in England, his intentions were to build and move forward. With this being said his goal was not destroy but to train and work with the men. His goal was to serve as a Lord Protector but he did not want to be King. Cromwell did not seem to care about the status of the soldiers more so their ability and strength; his troops had very good discipline.

The era of 1621 to 1653 showcases the introduction of the Caroline era, as it neared the end of James I’s reign, and extends to the proclamation of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector - following the downfall and defeat of the monarchy. As it primarily focuses on Charles I’s rule, his incapability to conduct pragmatic and decisive action as well as a general incapability to be flexible with his ideology in order to suit that of those around him, it is arguable that the ruler’s action - within the aforementioned time frame - is much more detrimental to the repetitive failure of parliament rather than the MPs; although it can be argued that both sides tended to “push limits” in order to insists their own ideologies.

Fighting between the king's sympathizers and the Independents broke out in 1648. Cromwell supported the Independents and put down the revolt. Soon afterward, Parliament's army seized Charles and removed the Presbyterian members of Parliament. Cromwell was a leader in the king's trial and execution in 1649. England then became a republic called the Commonwealth of England. In the next two years, Cromwell crushed uprisings by Scottish and Irish forces and defeated an army loyal to Charles Stuart, son of the executed king.

This writer focuses on two parts of the question ‘The Tudor Reformation was a method of strengthening absolute monarchy in England.’. The first focus is the word ‘method’ and the second focus is the word ‘strengthening’. The word ‘method’ means a planned way of doing something. In this case, the question can be interpreted as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a planned and intentional affair to achieve strenghtened absolute monarchy. Also, this writer is going to put emphasis on the comparison meaning of the word ’strengthen’. Then this essay has to show how the Tudor Reformation made aboslute monarchy stronger than before and what changes did the Tudor Reformation bring out in comparison with the past. According to these focuses, the question can be understood as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a calculated event and it was to accomplish more powerful abosolute monarchy than before in England.’ However, this writer disagrees with the sentence and thinks that the Tudor Reformation was not an affair that had an intention to reinforce abosolute monarchy. Therefore, in the main body, the essay is going to concentrate on whether it was an intentional or unintentional matter that is related to strengthen absolute royal authority. Moreover, figuring out whether the absolute monarchy was consolidated than before. Finally, this essay will examine how the politics was at that time. At the end, in the conclusion part, it puts this issue aside

By the 1640s the population of Europe was divided in a civil war on the power and rights of monarchs in their countries. Many thought that a sovereign king had absolute power that was bestowed upon them by the will of God and should not be overthrown no matter the condition or injustices they had committed against their people. Others thought that an unjust king is not sovereign and goes against the will of God and must be overthrown in such a situation. During this civil war philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Bodin, and John Locke wrote articles that covered the rights and duties of a sovereign monarch, why a sovereign monarch is needed and how the rights of the sovereign is absolute. Why is a government needed in order to ensure people within a commonwealth are protected? In this paper, I will argue that the need for a government and a sovereign ruler was to protect people not only from foreign invaders and enemies, but from their own human-ness.

The question of the role of government versus individual rights is at least as old as the 17th century. The concept of individual rights came about from the view that American's, as individual's, have the power to control their own lives and establish their own laws. So many people today think that America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but is it? A fundamental question, therefore, is the legitimate role and authority of government when it comes to human rights. Most people believe that the government is the first to blame for the increasing numbers of people in poverty, but society plays an important role in poverty as

The English Civil War was a war between Charles I and the Parliament, it took place between the years 1642 - 1649. The nobility and supporters of the king called themselves Cavaliers, and the Parliament and their supporters called themselves Roundheads. The Roundheads were for Puritan domination, otherwise known as the pilgrims. They built up their forces and then met for their first battle called Edge Hill in 1642. The result of that battle was undefined for both parties claimed they had won. They continued battling regularly, for example, in 1645, the outcome again was not clear. No real changes were made until Oliver Cromwell became general of the Parliament in 1944. He lead the battle of Marston Moor and defeated Charles the I. Another battle took place in 1645 in which Charles I was defeated. Charles I fled in 1647 to the Scottish in hopes to find shelter, but was sold to the Parliament. Charles I was beheaded in 1649 which was the end of the English Civil War. The Parliament made a stand and won showing that with determination they would be able to control the monarchy