Preview

To What Extent Do Monarch Push Or Reject Constitutionalism

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
637 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
To What Extent Do Monarch Push Or Reject Constitutionalism
Explain to what extent do monarchs push or reject constitutionalism. The rejection of constitutionalism by Charles I’s sour relationship with the Parliament and Oliver Cromwell’s dissolving of Parliament, along with the acceptance of constitutionalism through the Glorious Revolution during the reign of William and Mary all resulted in a strong English power and newly reinforced parliamentary rights. 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

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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

    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
  • Good Essays

    As a result of the American revolution Britain received a tremendous shock to its system with the loss of the thirteen colonies. The war revealed Britain’s limitations and this heightened dissension and escalated political antagonism towards the monarch, George III, and his ministers. At this time the main issues concerning parliament were now representation, parliamentary reform, and government retrenchment.…

    • 775 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    King Charles the First made some bold moves against parliament, besides not listening to their guidance. Because of his stubbornness, so to speak, a civil war came about between the crown and parliament in 1642 . The Cavaliers defeated the Round head sand King Charles was executed for treason. Due to King Charles the First's stunts, England had to basically start from scratch and give all power to parliament. Which if you actually think about is a good…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory 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

    They made him agree to not imprison subjects with out cause and not levy taxes without Parliament's consent. Charles did not follow these agreements. Charles offended the puritans by trying to have both kingdoms follow one religion, so the puritans rebelled.…

    • 750 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The relationship and status of the monarchy in parliament’s eyes had already been in a state of decline even before Charles’ reign. His predecessor had been known as the ‘wisest fool in Christendom’ and there was a lot of resentment towards the former king, James, not only because of the number of times he dissolved parliament but also from his abuse of power and alienation of them through royal prerogatives, which were justified by his own ‘divine right of kings’ belief. It could be argued that Charles was pulled into an uphill battle from the start and was not to blame for the damaged relationship between the commons and himself, however, during Charles’ reign, he made no attempt to reconcile relations even repeating the ideals of his father through the ‘divine right of kings’ and also through the arrogance of his attitude and subsequent dissolution of parliament on many occasions.…

    • 1108 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Additionally, parliament desired to stop his freedom of movement and they framed this as concerns they had about the King going to Scotland, because with Charles’ trip to Scotland came the worry that he would try to deploy a Scottish Army against parliament and they also needed Charles present to pass bills. As mentioned earlier parliament wanted Charles to not be able to choose his own advisors, they wanted only those who were ‘parliamentary approved’ to advise the King, as they ‘believed’ it was these advisors that were the root of the division between the King and his people, they couldn’t directly challenge the King and so went against his advisors and his power. Parliament were also scared that the King’s Arminian beliefs would influence his children and to ensure the future King or queen was closer to the public they wished to limit the King’s education and command over them via the introduction of only those who were ‘parliamentary approved’ to educate the children. In relation to the previous proposition regarding the sharing of authority over the military, parliament also wanted charge over the army’s regime (training, equipment, etc.) as they didn’t trust the King.…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    parliament frq

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages

    James I's belief in "divine right" of kings, which meant God had chosen him to be ruler, led him not to rely on Parliament. Rather than depend on Parliament, James I and his successor, Charles I looked for other ways to acquire funds such as illegally levying taxes. Parliament was rarely called on during this period. In response to Charles illegal taxation, Parliament passed the Petition of Right which stated that, to pass any law the ruler must consent to Parliament. In order to continue ruling without Parliament, Charles used Ship Money to collect taxes as revenue. He might have been able to rule indefinitely without Parliament if not for his religious policies which provoked war with Scotland and forced Charles to call Parliament into session. This session, known as the Long Parliament was determined to limit the power of the king. It resolved that Parliament would meet at least every three years. Parliament later split with Charles I and declared war on him. Both James I and Charles I fought to suppress Parliament during their reigns and claimed absolute power due to the "divine right" of kings.…

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Louis bribed the provincial governors to elect him. He did this to ensure loyalty to the kings at all levels of government. He also had a three year term so that any governors, who were not loyal, would not remain in power. Louis centralized the government, and had absolute control over them. During the constitution in England, Charles I was the king in 1625 with limited powers. He followed his father’s footsteps; James I, and was a stubborn man where the Parliament disliked him. Charles suspended the Parliament when the Parliament did not grant him to raise the taxes. But Charles had to recall the Parliament for its support to finance the war in Ireland. This led to many problems. When the parliamentarians captured Charles I, they tried to negotiate with him, but he refused to compromise. The parliamentarians had no choice but to behead him. Therefore, Absolutism in France was much more secure than Constitutionalism in…

    • 718 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles I had a very bad start as king, he held all the blame at this point, because of his bad start people didn’t trust him much and he also had a stammer and was shy so people thought it would be more likely for him to let a war happen. Charles needed a stronger personality to be able to rule, people disliked Charles even more when he made the Duke of Buckingham chief minister as he was very unpopular and selfish. Things didn’t get any better when Charles married a catholic wife with a strong personality. People feared that as England was protestant, and Charles married a catholic wife, because of her strong personality she might make England catholic. Parliament was partly to blame for the earlier tension as they tried to refuse customs taxes to Charles.…

    • 956 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles was able to exile Monmoth to the Netherlands in September 1679, use his prerogative powers to dissolve the exclusion parliaments 3 times and prorogue parliament 7 times and attend sessions in the house of Lords to secure support as well as allowing James back into the Privvy council in 1684. It also created greater stability for the elite with respect to property right. The fact he was able to defeat exclusion would have proven that Charles II was a strong monarch and able to stand up to parliament. Furthermore his success would have given Charles and much of the country including Torys confidence in the security of the monarchy which explains why 1681 was a turning point and seen by historians as a royalist recovery. The period between 1681-1685 is seen as a period of growing absolutism where Charles successfully got rid of his opposnents such as Shaftesbury and Monmoth during the Rye house plot and manipulate local government using charters and also manipulate the judiciary. He also used the Church for propaganda made sure that his decleration was read out from pulpits. Therefore Charles’s successful defeat of the exclusion crisis and growing absolutism is evidence that he was in a stronger…

    • 1227 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It could be argued, however that one of the other reasons cited for Charles losing the war was the lack of money. This was because the nobles and landowners who had sided with him didn't have any money to give him. With the support of wealthy merchants and traders, the parliamentarians had steady flow of money. Something Charles lacked and because of the lack of money, the…

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The clash between the two political models of absolutism and constitutionalism is the catalyst for the progression in English politics. With William and Mary as their rulers, the Parliament didn’t need to worry about a Catholic ruler and even better they were able to get their rulers to recognize the Bill of Rights of 1689. Finally able to limit the power of the monarch, making the ruler subject to the law and the consent of Parliament, the theory of a constitutional monarchy was put into action through this bill. This is the beginning of England’s, later Great Britain, rise to being a world power and setting an example that others will soon…

    • 717 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Parliament's refusal to both supply tax to the king and help him with his current monetary issues is the first area in which Parliament furthered the conflict and created more issues. When Charles…

    • 838 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays