In England, Charles’s imposition of such means the “placing of altars”, mentioned in Source B, and the prominence of catholics at court also mentioned in B, created underlying discontent. Furthermore, Charles imposition of the beauty of Holiness and the abolishment of the fed fees impropriations in 1633 made puritans extremely fearful of the apparent catholic tendencies of charles. These changes did not create truly vocalised opposition for several years. The case of John Williams and his challenge to the altar policy and the early use of Prynne are evidence, I believe of how vocalised opposition to the religious reforms was of vital importance to the collapse of the Personal rule. The general build in opposition, e.g.
Charles later did is he got Archbishop Laud to decorate the churches to make them look “more Catholic”. This made people angry because many people protestant and wanted to stay so. But that’s not the only reason religion caused the civil war: King Charles believed in the divine right (It was when the king/queen believes that god put them on the throne). Charles took all the power. Because of this, Parliament didn’t want to go with his decision.
Thomas Wentworth (the Earl of Strafford) and Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud were two of the most important and divisive figures of Charles I's personal rule. Both men introduced controversial measures that made them targets of much opposition, which would probably otherwise had been directed squarely at the king. Strafford in particular was something of a hate figure amongst parliamentarians, who would eventually condemn him to execution. In July 1633, Thomas Wentworth was made Lord Deputy of Ireland. He exercised his "thorough" policies there with a certain degree of brutality, using Ireland as something of a practice ground for social and military experimentation and turning the four religious groups (Irish Catholics, Catholic Old English, Protestant New English, Presbyterian Scots) in the country against each other.
Do you agree with the view expressed in Source K, that the diplomatic situation was the main reason for Henry’s failure to attain an annulment from Catherine by 1529? It is very clear that there was more than one factor that caused some difficulties for Henry VIII’s failure to gain an annulment from his marriage to Catherine by 1529. However, it is possible that the diplomatic situation has role in his failure, as it didn't help his case of getting an annulment and caused an impediment to his situation. Since the Pope was under the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, it made Henry’s situation more difficult due to the fact that he needed the Pope to grant his annulment, and what made it worse was that Charles V was the nephew of Catherine and had a great input into any of the Pope’s decisions. Source K argues that the Diplomatic situation was a highlight of Henry’s failed attempt to gaining an annulment.
When he became king in 1687, James set out to seek equality for Catholics which caused extreme controversy and affected both England and Ireland. Being a Catholic king in Great Britain was an unheard of thing and was no doubt a great struggle for James. However, it was not without its advantages. The King had great support both from Irish Catholics who had suffered greatly over the last century at the hands of Protestant power from Britain. He also had great support coming from the King of France.
A new religion was created by Henry VIII, called Protestant. This authorized people to divorce if they were unhappy about their marriage. This made all the pope, monks and priests very irritated and angry. Henry’s hunger for power slowly increased; he wanted to dissolve the monasteries as he felt strongly about controlling the church his way. Although Henry was king of England, he thought that the pope might have more control over the people in England.
Both sources A and B indicate that Charles was instrumental in the collapse of the relationship. In particular source A identifies Charles’ pursuit of ‘policies in religion, foreign affairs and finance” as major factors in contributing to the breakdown. This points to the attempts of Charles to reform the church and move it towards Arminianism; his disastrous failure at Cadiz and La Rochelle costing the country both money and men, and his attempt to finance the crown independently through the illegal collection of customs duties (tunnage and poundage). These policies drove a wedge between crown and parliament and were rooted in Charles’ behaviour and desire to exert his authority. Indeed source A attempts to remove the finger of blame from parliament, which had been accused of grasping to usurp the power and authority of the king, by suggesting that “money and parliamentary privilege were symptoms and not the cause of the breakdown.” Source B supports this notion as it indicates that the policies of Charles’ government “raised fundamental legal, constitutional and religious issues.” In this sense both sources A and B agree with each other,
Between the years of 1625 to 1629, discontent between Crown and Parliament was rife after a number of problems that caused conflict to arise. One of the major issues that caused such discontent was Buckingham’s foreign policy however, there were other reasons too such as Charles promoting Arminianism, Parliament not granting Charles tunnage and poundage and Charles refusing to remove Buckingham to name a few other reasons. Buckingham’s foreign policy is easily a significant factor as to why relations between Crown and Parliament began to get worse. Perhaps the most considerable factor was the failed Cadiz expedition. Buckingham was blamed heavily as the Cadiz expedition was a total failure.
This shows that these men can be considered as the main threat to the power and authority of the monarchy, however there are also other factors that threatened this ucg as the financial situation that England was in during this period, as well as the age and health of Edward and the actions he took during his reign. At this preliminary stage, it seems to be most likely that the most significant and main threat to the power and authority of the monarch was the ambitious advisors, Somerset and Northumberland because of the way in which they respectively acted in their role. The main threat from the ambitious advisors during the period 1547-1553 was very prevalent due to the fact that at that time Edward VI was a minor monarch meaning that he had limited control over what happened in England. The two men who were responsible for controlling the country were the Dukes of Somerset and Northumberland in 1547-1549 and 1550-1553 respectively. Both of these men posed a significant threat to the power and authority of the monarch, this can be seen, most significantly, during Somerset’s rule as Lord Protector.
This decision angered Philip. Overall the main causes for the two countries being enemies is over Religious and Marital gestures. Henry VIII: Beheading Catherine of Aragon. Breaking away from the Catholic Church Elizabeth I: Disagreeing to Philip’s marital gesture. Allowing people in England and Wales to choose their