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.
The Declaration of Independence persuaded other colonist to separate from England, to stand against the King, and to fight for independence. The reasons colonist wanted to revolt against England were mostly because of the King and how selfish and unfair he was. Colonist believed all men were created equal, so therefore when the King put himself above everyone else, it displeased the colonist. In the Declaration of Independence it states “He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Colonist used the selfish things the King did to persuade others to revolt. The King tried to force men to give up their rights to make laws.
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
In many ways, Elizabeth’s settlement took the via media between the conservative and reformist religious camps, yet the majority of the country was still Catholic. Thus, Elizabeth had made a compromised Protestant settlement in a country where a compromised Catholic settlement would have been more apt. Although she was able to placate some Catholics in the short term with conservative concessions, in time many Catholics became more conservative minded and resented the settlement which alienated them. This would have drastic political and social repercussions throughout her reign – for example, the threat of rebellion, the influence in parliament from the House of Lords, and the influence of Seminary priests and Jesuits to come. When looking at the resilience of Roman Catholicism, and the growing discontent amongst Conservatives, it is clear that Catholicism was to be, at the very least, as much of a threat as Puritanism – and given that there were more Catholics than Puritans, this threat was likely to be the most serious religious threat to Elizabeth, her country and her settlement in her entire reign.
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.
I think this is an important reason why Henry closed the Monasteries because Henry needed money quickly and the Monasteries had the money. Another reason why Henry tried to dissolve the Monasteries was his problem of needing a male heir. In order to get one he needed to divorce and remarry. The Pope refused to give permission for this and this led to Henry falling out with the Catholic Church. Henry had to get rid of them to show that he was now in control and not the Pope.
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.
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.
The Roman high officials saw Jesus and his Christian followers as a major threat to the Empire, even though Jesus probably had no intention of becoming a zealot, or political rebel. A high governor and judge, Pontius Pilate, had Jesus arrested and crucified. Pilate accused Jesus of treason, because Roman Emperors were supposed to be thought of
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.