Preview

Did Charles I Deserve to Be Excecuted?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
690 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Did Charles I Deserve to Be Excecuted?
Did Charles I Deserve to be Executed?

In the middle ages the power of the monarchs was a lot greater than the power of today. For example the monarch would create the laws and taxes the country would obey by there rules and there rules only. The monarch would decide when the country went to war and when Parliament was needed (many problems were caused by the monarchs and Parliament disagreeing). However nowadays our monarchs tend to hand over there power to parliament. Parliament creates the laws, taxes and decides what the country needs. The power of the monarch in 1625 – 49 decreased as Charles I did not consult parliament in what he did. His actions eventually lead the country to a civil war. He believed he could do whatever he wanted as he believed his power came from god. In this essay I will include why Charles ignores the will of parliament, why he started the civil war and if he was responsible for all the murders, rapings, burnings, damage and desolation.

Charge 1 – Charles ignored the will of parliament

Charles was guilty of this charge as he ignored parliament and raised taxes at his own will. This made parliament doubt his ability as king because he did not consult them and would not have needed to raise the taxes if he did. He married Henrietta Maria (when parliament advised him not to) which lead to him trying to change the religion of England and decorating puritan churches (this was one of the reasons of the civil war).
On the other hand Charles was not guilty as he had the divine right which means his power comes from god. In 1625 parliament granted him taxes for only one year this is why he raised them.
I believe Charles was guilty of this charge as he did everything at his own will. He should have listened to parliament and even though they only granted him taxes for one year. This is not a good thing to do if your country needs you to rule well.

Charge 2 – Charles started the Civil War

Charles was guilty of this charge as he

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
  • 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

    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
  • Better Essays

    A substantial difficulty that Charles II faced was that of finance. Finance was a major issue between crown and parliament, especially in-between the years 1665 to 1667. The Crown’s income had dropped by £200,000, and MPs believed that the problems were down to crown management rather than structural problems with the finance system. This shows that Charles II faced difficulties more to financial concerns as he was gaining a low income, concluding in him unable to fund and solve matters needed. It also shows that finance provoked further issues, as it is shown here to drive crown and parliament away from one another. Parliament also used finance to restrict the greater religious freedom Charles wanted to allow, again showing finance splitting the crown and parliament. In 1669 the commons used their financial influence over Charles in response to their concerns about his decision to allow the conventicle act to expire in 1668. Therefore in 1670 Charles issued a much more rigid conventicle act as the commons refused a £300,000 grant. The issues with finance clearly show the divide between Charles and Parliament, and these difficulties only increased.…

    • 1433 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better 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

    In January 1649, King Charles I was executed after being charged with high treason due to political and religious reasons, some of which contributed to his refusal in accepting the peace settlements given to him by Parliament. Charles’ refusal to compromise was supported by the division that had emerged within Parliament on how to fight the civil war between the Political Presbyterians and Political Independents. The main factors of the failure to reach a settlement were religion, politics, Charles’ intransigence, the New Model Army and the emergence of radical ideas; all of which eventually concluded to Charles’ execution.…

    • 1416 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Charles the First became king in England, (also in Scotland) in 1625. He caused many problems with the Parliament because he believed in absolute monarchy. At one point Parliament limited Charles The First's power and he went along with a petition they had made but soon dismissed the Parliament.…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory 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
  • Powerful Essays

    England was experiencing a rising conflict in its country in large part from religious conflict between different types of Protestants and factors including financial problems Charles I experienced as King. England was a Protestant country and when Charles I started implementing changes to the church, many got upset and fears he was turning the nation to Catholicism. Charles I also didn't spend his money wisely, just like his father, and found himself in the need to find more money in different ways. With Charles finding new ways to get money, he upset many people. England’s civil war in 1642 arose in large part due to differences in religious attitudes, the authority of the King and the lack of money he had in England.…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    First, the debt of the British had doubled in a short time. The Cider Tax had proved highly unpopular and many people were getting eager to removed it. Britain was also running short of credit with banks. In order to curb spending the British government believed that further attempts to tax the homeland would fail. They decided to seize…

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the document The Petition of Right, Parliament was bringing up their concerns to King Charles I. Parliament first brought up the problem of taxes, and how they believed that they should not be unfairly taxed, and in such an event should not be punished for not complying with unlawful taxation. Parliament also brought up their concerns of people being punished unlawfully, without first being allowed a trial by their peers. Finally, they brought up their concerns that in the case that a person be imprisoned, that they be allowed to be told what it is that they are being charged with. In this document, Parliament used past examples of statutes, and decrees of former kings to push back against the king, and to back up what they desire. They…

    • 291 Words
    • 2 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

    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

    The events and sentiments that ran through 17th century England were perhaps as paradoxical as Charles the 1st’s head being sewn back to his body after his execution. This era saw a polarization of thought, action and outcome in regards to several events, people and institutions. The height of this polarization existed between the monarchy and the parliament, as questions arose in regards to the extent of power the king could wield, and the extent of power Parliament was willing to allow the king to wield. The two ends of the power spectrum were absolute monarchy , which gave the king unlimited powers, or “royal prerogatives” according to the Stuarts due to their “divine right” to exercise it, and the other a constitutional monarchy , where…

    • 823 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