The Stuart Period (1603-1714) saw significant changes in England’s form of government, from Absolute monarchy to today’s Constitutional monarchy. Throughout this time of upheaval, a number of chief historic events were developed; those events include the English Civil War (1641-1649), the Stuart Restoration (1660), and Glorious Revolution (1688). Each of these events played an exceedingly essential role in the fall of English Absolutism and the birth of a Constitutional Monarchy. In other words, the Stuart Period was a history of intensive conflicts between the monarchs and parliament.
The definition of Absolutism is a government where the monarch has absolute power and control over the government without the need for consent from citizens …show more content…
This Stuart Period began with the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603. Elizabeth did not have any inheritance, therefore, the rule was given to her nephew James VI of Scotland. This caused both Scotland and England to be ruled by the same monarch. James VI took the name James I and made England into an absolute monarchy. James used divine rule proclaiming the monarch was “God’s Lieutenant”. In the book called “The Trew Law of a Free Monarchy,” which was published in 1598, James wrote the monarch had full control over the political, economic, and religious affairs of the country. Although the book was written before James became King of England, it can easily exhibit that James was devoting himself into the divine right of kings. Between King James and the parliament there had been serious tensions over financial issues as James needed money for his lavish lifestyle and wars with France. Additionally, religious disputes increased the tensions between the king and the parliament. Although Puritans wanted simpler services and more democratic church, James denied their requests, which fuelled hostility from the parliament against him. After 22 years of absolute rule, James I died in 1625, and his son, Charles I, inherited the …show more content…
With the belief in divine right of kings, Charles I became King in 1625 and reigned with complete autocracy like his father, keeping the absolute monarchy. The tensions between Charles I and the parliament increased as the king despised members of parliament and caused larger debts from the war in Europe and his luxurious life. A French Catholic wife whom Charles married to worsened the situation as the parliament worried England would be Catholic again. King’s financial problem continued as he was losing money from the costly fights, which left Charles no choice but to ask the very vexed and truculent parliament for money. Not surprisingly, Charles’ request was denied. However, the parliament had an exception; if Charles would follow and sign the Petition of Right, then the parliament would supply him with money. The Petition of Right stated that taxes could not be charged without the consent of the parliament, and that citizens of Britain could not be imprisoned without legitimate reason. Although Charles signed the Petition of Right in 1628 and started to gain money again, he did not keep his promise. It should be noted that the Petition of Right contradicts with the belief of the divine right. In order to avoid the pressure from the parliament, Charles dissolved the parliament in 1629 and decided to rule without it. His personal rule lasted till 1640 and is sarcastically called “The
The definition of Absolutism is a government where the monarch has absolute power and control over the government without the need for consent from citizens …show more content…
This Stuart Period began with the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603. Elizabeth did not have any inheritance, therefore, the rule was given to her nephew James VI of Scotland. This caused both Scotland and England to be ruled by the same monarch. James VI took the name James I and made England into an absolute monarchy. James used divine rule proclaiming the monarch was “God’s Lieutenant”. In the book called “The Trew Law of a Free Monarchy,” which was published in 1598, James wrote the monarch had full control over the political, economic, and religious affairs of the country. Although the book was written before James became King of England, it can easily exhibit that James was devoting himself into the divine right of kings. Between King James and the parliament there had been serious tensions over financial issues as James needed money for his lavish lifestyle and wars with France. Additionally, religious disputes increased the tensions between the king and the parliament. Although Puritans wanted simpler services and more democratic church, James denied their requests, which fuelled hostility from the parliament against him. After 22 years of absolute rule, James I died in 1625, and his son, Charles I, inherited the …show more content…
With the belief in divine right of kings, Charles I became King in 1625 and reigned with complete autocracy like his father, keeping the absolute monarchy. The tensions between Charles I and the parliament increased as the king despised members of parliament and caused larger debts from the war in Europe and his luxurious life. A French Catholic wife whom Charles married to worsened the situation as the parliament worried England would be Catholic again. King’s financial problem continued as he was losing money from the costly fights, which left Charles no choice but to ask the very vexed and truculent parliament for money. Not surprisingly, Charles’ request was denied. However, the parliament had an exception; if Charles would follow and sign the Petition of Right, then the parliament would supply him with money. The Petition of Right stated that taxes could not be charged without the consent of the parliament, and that citizens of Britain could not be imprisoned without legitimate reason. Although Charles signed the Petition of Right in 1628 and started to gain money again, he did not keep his promise. It should be noted that the Petition of Right contradicts with the belief of the divine right. In order to avoid the pressure from the parliament, Charles dissolved the parliament in 1629 and decided to rule without it. His personal rule lasted till 1640 and is sarcastically called “The