The Fall Of Absolutism In Seventeenth Century England

in 1629. It was symbolic of a time when the King felt that any joint

The English Civil War of 1642-1651 can be considered as a feud between the King and the English Parliament. Long before the onset of the civil war, Parliament and king Charles I had distrusted each other. As a result, Parliament often refused to finance the king’s wars. Unable to gain enough support from Parliament, Charles I challenged local control of nobles and landowners, who composed of the majority of Parliament, by “levying new tariffs and duties, attempting to collect discontinued taxes, and subjecting English property owners to…forced loan and then imprisoning those who refused to pay…as well as quartering troops in private homes” (Craig et al. 560). Parliament attempted to control the king’s power when it

During the Age of Absolutism, views of how government should have been run were drastically different that the views of Enlightenment thinkers. The fundamental difference between these two views of government – absolutism and Enlightenment – was that, in an absolute view of government, it stated that it should be run by a monarch – such as a king or a queen – and that he or she should have complete and unquestionable authority over everything, whereas the Enlightenment resulted in the development of new ideas, many of which criticized absolute monarchies, such as the idea that the fundamental function of government was to protect it's people's rights. The Enlightenment thinkers all had different ideas, and all to varying degrees, but the

Many rulers used absolutism in their countries. They believed rulers should have complete control over the country. Prince Machiavelli believed the best way to rule was to be feared and thought that the only way people would listen to him was if he was mean and scary. He thought if he was nice and loved then they would not fear him and end up taking advantage of him. (doc1) King James also believed absolutism was the way to go. He believed in divine right and that it was the only way to keep the country

The passing of the English Bill of Rights ushered in a new age for England, giving the power of the Monarchy to the Parliament, and banning the Monarch from adjourning Parliament or going against the opinion of its majority. The Bill lists that many tyrannical actions that had previously been made by many kings, such as levying money and suspending/revoking laws were illegal without the consent of Parliament (Document 3), essentially giving Parliament control of the direction of English law. The English Bill of Rights was ratified by William in 1689, which directly stated multiple times that the ruler’s power was to be checked by Parliament, thus inhibiting them from exercising full power over the people, preventing tyranny. He states in Document 2 that he and his wife Mary will “concur in everything that may procure the peace and happiness of [the] nation, which a free and lawful Parliament shall determine… [and support] the securing of the whole nation the free enjoyment of all their laws, rights, and liberties,

In January 1649, King Charles I was executed after being charged with high treason due to political and religious reasons, some of which contributed to his refusal in accepting the peace settlements given to him by Parliament. Charles’ refusal to compromise was supported by the division that had emerged within Parliament on how to fight the civil war between the Political Presbyterians and Political Independents. The main factors of the failure to reach a settlement were religion, politics, Charles’ intransigence, the New Model Army and the emergence of radical ideas; all of which

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)

Generally, the English people had a great celebration when Charles II returned to the throne in May of 1660.1 Many believed that restoring the monarchy was the only way to secure constitutional rights. In fact, there was an expectation that bringing back the king would return life to the way it was before 1642 and the rule of Cromwell. Charles II was responsible for improving the government for the people. However, despite some achievements, the king was not very successful in creating a stronger and more effective monarchy. He was dependent on his advisors and other parts of the government from the very beginning of his reign. There were constant conflicts between the king and

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

Charles I and Louis XVI were put on trial for all the right reasons, making many mistakes throughout their reign. Deathly hallow of Monarchy is a relatable title to draw the attention of the young history students of Grade 9. The Deathly hallow reminds us the references of death and holy powers from the famous stories of Harry Potter. In this essay, we are using that already known terms to throw light on the two European kings who believed so strongly in their holy right to rule. They stubbornly refused to give up their belief even though the blade was hanging over their neck.

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.

What actions led Parliament force Charles I to accept the Petition of Right? How would Charles I have attempted to defend himself and his actions? What freedoms did the Petition guarantee?-disputes between Parliament and King Charles I over the execution of the Thirty Years’ War, Parliament refused to grant subsidies to support the war effort, leading to Charles gathering "forced loans" without Parliamentary approval and arbitrarily imprisoning those who refused to pay. The Petition guaranteed restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation, forced billeting of soldiers, imprisonment without cause, and restricts the use of martial law.

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.

King Charles entered the House of Commons with armed soldiers in January 1642. His intention was to arrest five Members of Parliament, but the ones he was planning to arrest had been tipped off beforehand so they were not present. In March the same year, the Parliament passed the Militia Ordinance that gave the Parliament control of the local military forces. As a response, the King started to gather his own Royalist army. Both Royalists and Parliamentarians raided stores in order to get weapons and ammunition. Most of the large towns and cities stated who they supported, the King or the Parliament.

In 1642, he went to Parliament with 300 soldiers to arrest five biggest mps. Someone close to the king had already told Parliament that these men were about to be arrested and they had already fled to the safety of the city of London where they could easily hide from the king. However, Charles had shown his true side. Even Charles realised that things had broken down between him and Parliament. Only six days after trying to arrest the five Members of Parliament, Charles left London to head for Oxford to raise an army to fight Parliament for control of England.