Preview

Three Different Outbreaks: The English Civil War

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1112 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Three Different Outbreaks: The English Civil War
Beginning in 1642, The English Civil War, as known as the Great Rebellion, was made up of three different outbreaks. The Great Rebellion consisted of King Charles I going to battle with Parliament. Battle began as the outcome of a fray over the power of the rights of Parliament and rule of the Crown (“English Civil Wars” 1). Throughout the early stages of war, the people of Parliament were set on seeing Charles I as king, but widened powers for Parliament. Setting the tone, the Royalists started winning victories in the premier phases of the English Civil War, but the Parliamentarians, people of Parliament, conclusively successed. As the war progressed through to 1652, King Charles I was executed, and Charles II was called to the crown …show more content…

James I was known for a petrous relation with Parliament and was very fond of an extravagant lifestyle, which would include money and power (Salgado 2). Charles I, like his father, would refuse to let Parliament meet. For a period of eleven years, called the Eleven Years Tyranny, Parliament members had been locked out of the doors of Westminster (“Causes of the English”). The Court of Star Chamber helped Charles I rule. To meet the rapacious requirements of Charles’s lifestyle, the court would heavily tax and fine the people of the kingdom. Wealthy men were influenced by the Court of Star Chambers to buy expensive noble titles. If not bought, Charles would require them to pay dues the same amount of money the title cost, anyway. Adding to the different fees, Charles ordered everyone in the country to pay Ship Money. Ship money was money paid by nearby villages and coastal towns for supplies and goods for the navy (“Causes of the Civil” 2). His logic behind this tax was that everyone, especially the coastal towns, benefited from the navy and they provided protection for the country. In the end, the population of England become fed up with all the taxing, but the people of England were not the only ones effected by Charles I poor ruling …show more content…

Life under Cromwell’s rule was grim for his supporters and the English population. Strict Puritan religious rule was forced upon the people of England. He even made theaters and sporting events illegal to attend, taking away some of the people's favorite pass times. Cromwell also declared England as a “republic”, but his actions showed a dictatorship ( Salgado 3). England changing from an absolute monarchy under the rule of Charles I to a “republic” with little power under the rule of Oliver Cromwell, shook the British foundation and lead the English people to crave a new king. In 1658, Cromwell finally died and the people could certainly get the new king they have been waiting for. The Restoration was when Charles II, son of Charles I, came to the throne in 1660 (“Civil War” 3). Charles II was nicknamed “Merry Monarch” for the reason of nullifying many Puritan rules and regulations formed by Oliver

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    For the greater part of the 1630’s Englishmen paid their taxes, most likely grumbling whilst doing it, but they were paid. During his personal rule 1629-40, Charles I needed to raise revenue by using non-parliamentary means, i.e. in ways he would not need a parliament’s permission to collect. In order to do this, Charles changed certain policies to make them more financially gaining and brought back taxes that had not been used for numerous years, ranging from Ship Money to Credit to Monopolies.…

    • 2109 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In terms of finance, it can be argued that the situation was not successful. The Government managing it could not provide a stable financial settlement. Largely the King did not have much in the way of money, and Charles' excessive spending on pleasurable activities, at the beginning of his reign only exacerbated the disastrous financial situation. Initially, although Charles agreed to give up feudal dues that were revived by his father, he was granted an annual income of £1.2 million by Parliament. However, this arrangement had two drawbacks. Firstly, the financial settlement that Charles was given, was simply not adequate to his needs. Secondly, the hearth tax that was imposed to raise the money was highly unpopular to the people. It is hard to say a reign is 'successful' if the Monarch is unpopular, especially as the country at that time, was still suffering from the financial situation left behind by the…

    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles I did not go along with the parliament. He took a serious hit during his 22 years as king. He began to give into extra parliamentary resorts such as, new tariffs and duties and collection of discontinued taxes. This angered the parliament as taxes were being illegally collected for an already unfortunate war and one that involved France…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    James I was an absolutist ruler who emphasized the divine right of kings and sought to restrain Parliament under his will. Consequently, conflicts were inevitable as James I, and ensuing rulers, often found himself deficient of funds, and Parliament served as the gateway to the money. James I and his successor Charles I called Parliamentary meetings solely to ascertain the issue of funds. During this period, Parliament was rarely called upon and after these debates for money, Charles I and James I completely dissolved the Parliament. I did so because he agreed to admit the illegality of his taxes in turn for funding from Parliament. Afterwards, he abolished the Parliament to pursue his own endeavors. Furthermore, during Charles tenure, the English Civil War took place as a result from the lack of amity between Charles and Parliament. The Scottish invaded England, but Parliament refused to allow Charles to raise an army, because they feared he would abuse his powers and assail English citizens who opposed him. Charles I was eventually defeated and executed by Oliver Cromwell. Following the inadequacy of Cromwell, Charles II rose to power and was keyed the "merry monarch" for his easy-going nature. He imposed the Cabal system, a group of five individuals who handled the political issues of England; the term Cabal stems from the initials of each official member. This system acted as a type of Parliament in its methods of governing. During this period as a whole, it is evident that Parliament often conflicted with the ideals of the ruling monarch.…

    • 540 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    When King Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he was set on the idea of a personal rule without any help from Parliament. This he could manage, as long as he avoided war. His aim was to sort out the country's finances, and with the help of Strafford and Laud, impose a 'Policy of Thorough'. This policy was the idea of a fair and paternalistic government with no corruption. However, within 11 years, Charles' personal rule had failed and England was drifting into war. There are mixed opinions on whether this failure was solely due to the actions of the King, or those of third parties, for example, Strafford or Laud.…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    His childhood left a mark on Charles's behaviour as king. Like James he was a believer in the divine right of kings. Unlike James, he was absolutist and tried to put it into practice. Given his belief in divine right, he saw all parliaments privileges as being subject to the approval of the monarch, not as liberties that had existed without the judgement of the monarch. Also unlike James He saw all criticism and anyone who questioned him as disloyal. An example of these in combination is when Charles I dissolved parliament because he was being criticized by Parliament as he felt he didn't need them as long as he could avoid war. This began the 11 year period known as the Personal Rule where he ran the country through royal prerogative instead of in cooperation with parliament.…

    • 611 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Chapter 15

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages

    3. Within the succession of James I and the Glorious Revolution, the role of Parliament in England was presented with a series of alterations including being neglected due to the idea of ruling by absolutism, being diminished altogether by Oliver Cromwell, and finally being restored and receiving it’s power back by William of Orange.…

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of the biggest factors of Charles’s personal rule which reveals his intentions is his control of…

    • 757 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the…

    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    parliament frq

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages

    England developed a Parliamentary monarchy that shaped future political development in Europe. Beginning with the succession of James I up through the Glorious Revolution, the role of Parliament in English Politics underwent considerable changes, such as being disregarded by the king of "divine right," James I and his son Charles I, then completely dissolved under the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, and finally restored after James II was forced to abdicate his throne and William of Orange assumed his place. Throughout these different stages, Parliament's power and control over English politics varied greatly depending upon the ruler in power.…

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    These eleven years, Charles believed he had the divine right to rule, which was a right, he believed, given to him by God. During these years he had to find a way to raise funds that did not involve Parliament. Therefore, he created his own changes and new taxes. Charles created taxes on goods so those who had monopolies, must pay him a tax before they, the monopolist, could make their own profits. Charles made a tax by selling rights to monopolies. This tax that Charles made said that individual could buy the rights to a monopoly of a product. Therefore, only one company could sell a certain product, which also meant that the prices for the products would increase. Soap was an example of such a monopoly made by the Company of Soapmakers, a joint stock company run by the Catholics. Due to being run by the Catholics, this brought additional unrest in England. Charles also implemented ship-money during these eleven years. He required everyone in the country, not just those on the coast of England, to pay him this money. When Charles forced this on everyone, he further alienated his people, even those that had previously been supportive of the…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In England, during the first half of the 17th century, two monarchs came to power that attempted to develop royal absolutism in that country. Both James I (James VI of Scotland) and Charles I tried to rule without consenting Parliament, but Parliament had so much control at the time that neither James nor Charles successfully decreased the role of Parliament in English government. The English had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for so long that they weren't ready to give all the power of government to a single person. The merchants and land-owning nobles supported Parliament, where members could be elected and changed in necessary, rather than an absolute monarch with no restraints. In 1642, differences between…

    • 751 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Historians have debated the powers of the king and parliament for centuries, and the events that molded the power balance between the two institutions. This power balance had been changed to a large extent by the end of the seventeenth century from what it had been at the beginning; as power and control slipped out of the monarchy’s grasp and into parliament’s hands. For could James the 1st have ever imagined that in a few years time his son would be beheaded on the charge of treason, and the monarchy itself would be abolished? Could William the 3rd have contemplated having the power to command a standing army, and conducting a foreign policy independent of Parliament? No one can deny the political changes of this era, however, what can be argued is what form this change took; an evolution or a revolution?…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    For centuries Kings were living in luxury, content with the absolute power and control they had. Losing this power had never even crossed their mind as although there was always the chance of assassination, they could rest easy knowing that no one could politically touch him. However, this all changed when Charles I took over the throne as due to his misdeeds and increasing pressure from the public and parliament, he was put on trial which was mind blowing at the time and then finally executed. Such an act had never been seen which had many people in shock, especially Charles I since he and many others had thought even considering to put a king on trial was a sin (59). The reason for this was because Charles I was brought up believing that he was the divine leader to his subjects which is significant because it…

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays