On January 30, 1649 there occurred something that had never before happened in the course of history, and this was a regicide. Regicide is when a king is put to trial and sentenced to death by his own subjects. This happened for the first time in England to King Charles I. Charles was a tyrant king from the beginning of his reign. Eventually England grew sick of this tyrant king and Oliver Cromwell was the leader of the pack. Charles attempted to terminate Parliament, but this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and now civil war was upon the people of England.
Puritans wanted further reform of the Anglican Church, specifically a move towards a more Protestant Church. In 1603 James was presented with a Millenary Petition, this was a list of requests given to James by Puritans when he was travelling to London in order to claim the English throne, it is believed that it had a thousand signatures of Puritan ministers, The Petition was careful not to challenge the royal supremacy in the Church of England. The document expressed Puritan distaste regarding the state of Anglican Church, basically Puritan’s felt was that, despite Elizabeth's best efforts and the introduction of the new Book of Common Prayer, the Anglican Church still remained too popish. The Demands of the Millenary Petition where the signing of the cross during baptism, Confirmation, the administration of baptism by women, use of the ring in marriage, bowing at the name of Jesus, dress of the ministers and priests living in the church. They also disagreed with popish terms such as ‘Priest’ and ‘Absolution’, and rejected popish garments the clergy were obliged to wear at service.
2nd Analysis – Mandate of Heaven vs. The Divine Right of Kings By Krista Lawler HSY 235 Mr. McElroy March 17, 2008 The Mandate of Heaven vs. The Divine Right of Kings – Compare & Contrast The Divine Right of Kings and the Mandate of Heaven our very similar yet very different political theories and writings. The Divine Right of Kings claimed that kings were answerable only to God and it was sinful for their subjects to resist them. This would later be called absolutist theory.
Was Charles I to blame for the outbreak of the civil war Oliver Cromwell- warts and allhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/images/charles_i.jpg On the 22nd of August 1642 king Charles I declared war on the members of parliament who opposed Charles laws and acts. He did this in Nottinghamshire, where he met his people who wanted to fight for him. There were two types of causes for the outbreak of the civil war. These were long term and short term causes. The long term causes for the civil war were: Charles belief in the divine right of kings, Archbishop Laud’s reforms to the Church of England, money problems and the rise of parliament and Charles’ attempt to rule without parliament.
In 1213 he collected so much money from taxes that half of all the coins in England were his to spend. By doing this he aggravated the Barons, good Kings consult their Barons when handling big decisions but John didn’t. The facts suggest that the Barons got irritated when John didn’t consult them when important matters were being discussed; this was another long term cause of the rebellion. Another long term cause for the rebellion was the disagreement over the church. In 1205 John was in discrepancy with the Pope over who ought to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury, just like his father had done, John refused to let Stephen Langton, the Pope’s
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.
As he was the king, he had thought that he had the power to make the Scots use English prayer books. The scots were so furious that they decided to fight Charles I instead. This also made him unpopular to the scots as well as the people of England. When the scots had defeated him Charles had to pay lots of tax money which he couldn’t afford. So, Charles had to recall parliament, as only tax voted by parliament got rid of the scots.
Because of the favouritism of King Charles towards Buckingham, he dissolved the second Parliament to save Buckingham after the Commons had impeached him. The third Parliament passed down the Petition of Right which declared that the King was doing illegal actions and made religious innovation. Charles then dissolved the Parliament, imprisoned the leaders of the Commons and governed for 11 years as a dictator. It
Alexandra HIS 202-415A Assignment #1 In the Political Treatise, where does the king derive his authority to rule? Can kings do whatever they want? Are there any restraints on their actions? What defense does an individual have against a king? In the political treatise, the king derives his authority to rules from God.
To what extent was Charles I responsible for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement 1646-1649? It can be argued that to a large extent that Charles’ behaviour was responsible for his execution in the beginning of 1649. Losing both civil wars, escaping from the New Model Army and secret letters to his wife claiming that he will delay negotiations for as long as possible suggests reasons why he was executed. However, Parliament and the New Model Army were also factors which were responsible for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement as Parliament were divided and because the New Model Army were highly influenced from the Levellers. The King being the most important figure in England assumed he had all authority within England as he firmly believed in the ‘Divine Rights of Kings’ which is the belief that God has given the King his authority and so the King lives through God’s ‘legacy’.