A place to discuss, debate, and dig deeper into AP European History at Cheshire Academy
Thursday, October 24, 2013
How did Parliament effect James I and Charles I's religious and political decisions? What would have occurred if Parliament was not present during these situations?
During James I's reign, Parliament was rarely called in. Many religious problems, particularly with the Puritans, occurred. As a result, I think that James I would have been able to handle political and religious matters more efficiently with Parliament. Charles I also had a difficult relationship with Parliament and only called on them when he absolutely needed them. I think with Parliament, Charles I would have been able to cooperate with a big group of people with contrasting views, which may have helped him especially during religious struggles. However, Charles chose not to listen to Parliament and started warring with them, which caused a huge divide in England.
Because of James I belief of the divine right, he rarely asked Parliament for help because he wanted total control. He saw no need for them. Also, they were more of a threat to his power, so he found his own ways of solving economic problems without Parliament. In addition, since James didn't want to call in Parliament and Parliament couldn't balance and check James's decisions, such as James placing his friends in high ranks and suspicions of re-Catholization. In Charles I's case, Parliament affected Charles's economic decisions because the Parliament did not like monarchy, so they would not fund wars. So, Charles had to come with his own ways of dealing with the problem. He simply refused to ask Parliament for help at any cost. If Parliament was not present then there would be no threat of power from the monarchy and the kings could do whatever they wanted.
When James I was king, he almost never called parliament and as soon as an argument would happen, he dissolved it. He felt that He didn't need parliament because he believed in absolutism, or, as Chelsea said, divine right. He believed in one true ruler both by religion and by politics. Also Parliament forced both kings to make certain decisions. James had problems with Puritans and still didn't call Parliament. He made decisions that would have been better planned and thought out if Parliament could have helped. Charles I was different. He also almost never called parliament but needed money to fund wars because he didn't have much resources. Charles was forced to call Parliament in 1640 because of a war with the Scots. But neither king had a good relationship with parliament and wanted to rule on their own. Parliament forced them to do certain things to change their power and they made decisions that we know would have been different without Parliament being present. But the kings were able to do almost anything they wanted, but not everything.
Both Charles I and James I rarely called upon parliament for guidance. As Gillian and Chelsea have stated, these monarchs only called upon parliament when absolutely necessary. Parliament was a way to limit the power of the king and Charles and James did not like this idea. They wanted absolute control over England. Parliament of course was not in favor of absolute control and cut off the monarchs ability to tax, and cut off funding for wars. Charles in turn, had to find other sources of income. Some of these sources included old laws or a tax that was to be "repaid". Eventually Charles ran out of sources of income and had to call upon Parliament for financial support. Parliament refused to even consider providing Charles with money unless he agreed to redress a long list of political and religious grievances. In response the king immediately dissolved parliament until the English were defeated by the Scots when he reconvened Parliament. In my opinion I think that England would have been better off if both Charles and James accepted Parliament as a political power. The amount of political and religious conflicts could have been greatly reduced with the help of Parliament. If Parliament didn't exist, like Chelsea said, there would have been no threat to the absolute rule of the king.
I agree with what my classmates have said, Charles I and James I both seldom looked to Parliament when it came to religious and political ruling. Parliament recognized that they were getting too much control and consequently becoming more and more power hungry in a dangerous way. Charles I did not agree with the restrictions parliament was putting on him, so he dissolved them. This backfired on him when the Scots rebelled against his attempt at religious conformity. Charles was forced to call upon Parliament for resources to fend off the rebellion. Parliament's control was short lived however, because Charles's dissolved Parliament again and in result, the Scot's defeated the English army. So, in short, Parliament did little to affect Charles's decisions, as he did everything in his power to ignore them and keep all the power in his hands.
My classmates have already stated all of the major effects that Parliament had on James I and Charles I respective reigns, so I will proceed to summarize them. Both monarchs were always at odds with parliament. Parliament was always viewed by James I and Charles I as an auxiliary political power. Parliament, on the other hand, clung to whatever control had over of the current monarch. Thus, parliament had a detrimental effect on the absolutist rule that both monarchs idealized.
After Elizabeth, the queen of England, relationship between king and Parliament in was not good. Firstly, James 1 had lots of opposition with Parliament. He tried to unite England and Scotland, but it didn't come true because of Parliament's strong objections. He also strongly suppressed both Catholic and Puritans, which is the cause of Puritans moved to North America. Charles 1, the king after James 1, didn't even called Parliament for 11 years. He focused at foreign policies, (also) without any discussion with Parliament, and spent lot of national funds. Both had their advisers who worked with instead of Parliament, like the duke of Buckingham, king James' favorite, and Thomas Wentworth, the chief adviser of king Charles. In my opinion, the nation might had better result if Parliament had stronger power. James and Charles both failed some policies and contributed national decline. Because Parliament represents citizens' value, and cooperate ideas of many people, rather than king decides himself, it would made more efficient decision.
James I and Charles I both rarely called Parliament. In place of parliamentary approved revenues, James developed other sources of income, largely by levying new custom duties known as impositions. Members of Parliament regarded this as an affront to their authority over the royal purse, but they did not seek a serious confrontation and throughout James’s reign they wrangled and negotiated. During Charles’s I reign, in the beginning, Charles I was unable to gain adequate funds from Parliament and so he restored to extra parliamentary measures which included levying new tariffs and duties, attempting to collect discontinued taxes, and subjecting English property owners to a so-called forced loan and then imprisoning those who refused to pay. Then, in 1628, Parliament granted new funds only if Charles recognized the Petition of Right. This document stated that there should be no forced loans or taxation without the consent of Parliament, that no freeman should be imprisoned without due cause, and that troops should not billeted in private homes. Charles agreed to the petition, but Charles dissolved Parliament and did not recall it until 1640 during a period of war. But the problem was that Parliament, refused to consider funds for war until the king agreed to redress a long list of political and religious grievances and the king then immediately dissolved the Parliament. Charles reconvened the Parliament when the Scots defeated an English Army at the Battle of Newburn. Later on, Charles was trying to take advantage of Parliament but failed and ended up getting killed. Overall, I thought that Parliament was a way to limit the power of James I and Charles I. James I and Charles I didn’t want Parliament involved during their reign because they wanted absolute control over England. If Parliament was not present during the reigns James I wouldn’t have to deal with Parliament trying to negotiate and wrangle with him and Charles I may have ended up living longer and not having to deal with them either.
James I and Charles I both rarely called Parliament. In place of parliamentary approved revenues, James developed other sources of income, largely by levying new custom duties known as impositions. Members of Parliament regarded this as an affront to their authority over the royal purse, but they did not seek a serious confrontation and throughout James’s reign they wrangled and negotiated. During Charles’s I reign, in the beginning, Charles I was unable to gain adequate funds from Parliament and so he restored to extra parliamentary measures which included levying new tariffs and duties, attempting to collect discontinued taxes, and subjecting English property owners to a so-called forced loan and then imprisoning those who refused to pay. Then, in 1628, Parliament granted new funds only if Charles recognized the Petition of Right. This document stated that there should be no forced loans or taxation without the consent of Parliament, that no freeman should be imprisoned without due cause, and that troops should not billeted in private homes. Charles agreed to the petition, but Charles dissolved Parliament and did not recall it until 1640 during a period of war. But the problem was that Parliament, refused to consider funds for war until the king agreed to redress a long list of political and religious grievances and the king then immediately dissolved the Parliament. Charles reconvened the Parliament when the Scots defeated an English Army at the Battle of Newburn. Later on, Charles was trying to take advantage of Parliament but failed and ended up getting killed. Overall, I thought that Parliament was a way to limit the power of James I and Charles I. James I and Charles I didn’t want Parliament involved during their reign because they wanted absolute control over England. If Parliament was not present during their reigns James I wouldn’t have to deal with Parliament trying to negotiate and wrangle with him and Charles I may have ended up living longer and not having to deal with them either.
During James I's reign, Parliament was rarely called in. Many religious problems, particularly with the Puritans, occurred. As a result, I think that James I would have been able to handle political and religious matters more efficiently with Parliament. Charles I also had a difficult relationship with Parliament and only called on them when he absolutely needed them. I think with Parliament, Charles I would have been able to cooperate with a big group of people with contrasting views, which may have helped him especially during religious struggles. However, Charles chose not to listen to Parliament and started warring with them, which caused a huge divide in England.
ReplyDeleteBecause of James I belief of the divine right, he rarely asked Parliament for help because he wanted total control. He saw no need for them. Also, they were more of a threat to his power, so he found his own ways of solving economic problems without Parliament. In addition, since James didn't want to call in Parliament and Parliament couldn't balance and check James's decisions, such as James placing his friends in high ranks and suspicions of re-Catholization. In Charles I's case, Parliament affected Charles's economic decisions because the Parliament did not like monarchy, so they would not fund wars. So, Charles had to come with his own ways of dealing with the problem. He simply refused to ask Parliament for help at any cost. If Parliament was not present then there would be no threat of power from the monarchy and the kings could do whatever they wanted.
ReplyDeleteWhen James I was king, he almost never called parliament and as soon as an argument would happen, he dissolved it. He felt that He didn't need parliament because he believed in absolutism, or, as Chelsea said, divine right. He believed in one true ruler both by religion and by politics. Also Parliament forced both kings to make certain decisions. James had problems with Puritans and still didn't call Parliament. He made decisions that would have been better planned and thought out if Parliament could have helped. Charles I was different. He also almost never called parliament but needed money to fund wars because he didn't have much resources. Charles was forced to call Parliament in 1640 because of a war with the Scots. But neither king had a good relationship with parliament and wanted to rule on their own. Parliament forced them to do certain things to change their power and they made decisions that we know would have been different without Parliament being present. But the kings were able to do almost anything they wanted, but not everything.
ReplyDeleteBoth Charles I and James I rarely called upon parliament for guidance. As Gillian and Chelsea have stated, these monarchs only called upon parliament when absolutely necessary. Parliament was a way to limit the power of the king and Charles and James did not like this idea. They wanted absolute control over England. Parliament of course was not in favor of absolute control and cut off the monarchs ability to tax, and cut off funding for wars. Charles in turn, had to find other sources of income. Some of these sources included old laws or a tax that was to be "repaid". Eventually Charles ran out of sources of income and had to call upon Parliament for financial support. Parliament refused to even consider providing Charles with money unless he agreed to redress a long list of political and religious grievances. In response the king immediately dissolved parliament until the English were defeated by the Scots when he reconvened Parliament. In my opinion I think that England would have been better off if both Charles and James accepted Parliament as a political power. The amount of political and religious conflicts could have been greatly reduced with the help of Parliament. If Parliament didn't exist, like Chelsea said, there would have been no threat to the absolute rule of the king.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what my classmates have said, Charles I and James I both seldom looked to Parliament when it came to religious and political ruling. Parliament recognized that they were getting too much control and consequently becoming more and more power hungry in a dangerous way. Charles I did not agree with the restrictions parliament was putting on him, so he dissolved them. This backfired on him when the Scots rebelled against his attempt at religious conformity. Charles was forced to call upon Parliament for resources to fend off the rebellion. Parliament's control was short lived however, because Charles's dissolved Parliament again and in result, the Scot's defeated the English army. So, in short, Parliament did little to affect Charles's decisions, as he did everything in his power to ignore them and keep all the power in his hands.
ReplyDeleteMy classmates have already stated all of the major effects that Parliament had on James I and Charles I respective reigns, so I will proceed to summarize them. Both monarchs were always at odds with parliament. Parliament was always viewed by James I and Charles I as an auxiliary political power. Parliament, on the other hand, clung to whatever control had over of the current monarch. Thus, parliament had a detrimental effect on the absolutist rule that both monarchs idealized.
ReplyDeleteAfter Elizabeth, the queen of England, relationship between king and Parliament in was not good. Firstly, James 1 had lots of opposition with Parliament. He tried to unite England and Scotland, but it didn't come true because of Parliament's strong objections. He also strongly suppressed both Catholic and Puritans, which is the cause of Puritans moved to North America. Charles 1, the king after James 1, didn't even called Parliament for 11 years. He focused at foreign policies, (also) without any discussion with Parliament, and spent lot of national funds. Both had their advisers who worked with instead of Parliament, like the duke of Buckingham, king James' favorite, and Thomas Wentworth, the chief adviser of king Charles.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the nation might had better result if Parliament had stronger power. James and Charles both failed some policies and contributed national decline. Because Parliament represents citizens' value, and cooperate ideas of many people, rather than king decides himself, it would made more efficient decision.
James I and Charles I both rarely called Parliament. In place of parliamentary approved revenues, James developed other sources of income, largely by levying new custom duties known as impositions. Members of Parliament regarded this as an affront to their authority over the royal purse, but they did not seek a serious confrontation and throughout James’s reign they wrangled and negotiated. During Charles’s I reign, in the beginning, Charles I was unable to gain adequate funds from Parliament and so he restored to extra parliamentary measures which included levying new tariffs and duties, attempting to collect discontinued taxes, and subjecting English property owners to a so-called forced loan and then imprisoning those who refused to pay. Then, in 1628, Parliament granted new funds only if Charles recognized the Petition of Right. This document stated that there should be no forced loans or taxation without the consent of Parliament, that no freeman should be imprisoned without due cause, and that troops should not billeted in private homes. Charles agreed to the petition, but Charles dissolved Parliament and did not recall it until 1640 during a period of war. But the problem was that Parliament, refused to consider funds for war until the king agreed to redress a long list of political and religious grievances and the king then immediately dissolved the Parliament. Charles reconvened the Parliament when the Scots defeated an English Army at the Battle of Newburn. Later on, Charles was trying to take advantage of Parliament but failed and ended up getting killed. Overall, I thought that Parliament was a way to limit the power of James I and Charles I. James I and Charles I didn’t want Parliament involved during their reign because they wanted absolute control over England. If Parliament was not present during the reigns James I wouldn’t have to deal with Parliament trying to negotiate and wrangle with him and Charles I may have ended up living longer and not having to deal with them either.
ReplyDeleteJames I and Charles I both rarely called Parliament. In place of parliamentary approved revenues, James developed other sources of income, largely by levying new custom duties known as impositions. Members of Parliament regarded this as an affront to their authority over the royal purse, but they did not seek a serious confrontation and throughout James’s reign they wrangled and negotiated. During Charles’s I reign, in the beginning, Charles I was unable to gain adequate funds from Parliament and so he restored to extra parliamentary measures which included levying new tariffs and duties, attempting to collect discontinued taxes, and subjecting English property owners to a so-called forced loan and then imprisoning those who refused to pay. Then, in 1628, Parliament granted new funds only if Charles recognized the Petition of Right. This document stated that there should be no forced loans or taxation without the consent of Parliament, that no freeman should be imprisoned without due cause, and that troops should not billeted in private homes. Charles agreed to the petition, but Charles dissolved Parliament and did not recall it until 1640 during a period of war. But the problem was that Parliament, refused to consider funds for war until the king agreed to redress a long list of political and religious grievances and the king then immediately dissolved the Parliament. Charles reconvened the Parliament when the Scots defeated an English Army at the Battle of Newburn. Later on, Charles was trying to take advantage of Parliament but failed and ended up getting killed. Overall, I thought that Parliament was a way to limit the power of James I and Charles I. James I and Charles I didn’t want Parliament involved during their reign because they wanted absolute control over England. If Parliament was not present during their reigns James I wouldn’t have to deal with Parliament trying to negotiate and wrangle with him and Charles I may have ended up living longer and not having to deal with them either.
Delete