After the civil war in Britain, kings and parliament constantly cashed for a battle of power. England had always been a place of monarchial rule and everyone respected and followed whoever was in the throne. This was changed by the uprising of parliament’s power. Thus came English Revolutionaries, they believed in shared power derived from parliament while still under a monarch. Parliament began to win out against the king but still was controlled by the king, it began a new spark of modern government and new ideologies sprouted. The principles of these revolutionaries can be seen in documents such as the English Bill of Rights, which show a limited constitutional monarchy. Revolutionaries valued the rights of the people and setting limits
…show more content…
Charles supported the church in government but great landowners took over bishops’ places in parliament. In 1629 Charles and parliament came to a deadlock, Charles I tried to rule without parliament which only made matters worse. A chain reaction of English revolutionaries emerged to oppose Charles I. “But by certain reforms in Ireland he antagonized the English landlords who had interest in that country. By supporting the leadership and theology of the Church of England he made enemies of the Puritans. By attempting to modernize the navy with funds raised without parliamentary consent . . . he alarmed all property owners . . .” (Palmer, 158). All of these occurrences showed how principled the revolutionaries were by not letting Charles I accomplish his desires without parliaments say. Especially during the time of the long parliament, which proved even if the king personally did not like elected officials and tried for new ones the people would send the same men back again. It limited the king’s power and allowed the people to have representatives they trusted. The political body in the long parliament was the same for twenty years without new elections. They used the Scottish rebellion to press in their own demands, and began a bloody war with the king. Revolutionaries still followed their principles and would not let the king over take
Charles supported the church in government but great landowners took over bishops’ places in parliament. In 1629 Charles and parliament came to a deadlock, Charles I tried to rule without parliament which only made matters worse. A chain reaction of English revolutionaries emerged to oppose Charles I. “But by certain reforms in Ireland he antagonized the English landlords who had interest in that country. By supporting the leadership and theology of the Church of England he made enemies of the Puritans. By attempting to modernize the navy with funds raised without parliamentary consent . . . he alarmed all property owners . . .” (Palmer, 158). All of these occurrences showed how principled the revolutionaries were by not letting Charles I accomplish his desires without parliaments say. Especially during the time of the long parliament, which proved even if the king personally did not like elected officials and tried for new ones the people would send the same men back again. It limited the king’s power and allowed the people to have representatives they trusted. The political body in the long parliament was the same for twenty years without new elections. They used the Scottish rebellion to press in their own demands, and began a bloody war with the king. Revolutionaries still followed their principles and would not let the king over take