Preview

How Did Charles I Lose His Power

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1100 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How Did Charles I Lose His Power
For centuries Kings were living in luxury, content with the absolute power and control they had. Losing this power had never even crossed their mind as although there was always the chance of assassination, they could rest easy knowing that no one could politically touch him. However, this all changed when Charles I took over the throne as due to his misdeeds and increasing pressure from the public and parliament, he was put on trial which was mind blowing at the time and then finally executed. Such an act had never been seen which had many people in shock, especially Charles I since he and many others had thought even considering to put a king on trial was a sin (59). The reason for this was because Charles I was brought up believing that he was the divine leader to his subjects which is significant because it …show more content…
In Hobbes’ mind humans are naturally violent and need to control to avoid any outbursts which would destroy social order (63). People with this thought process saw that the body in power should have complete authority over their subjects with no restraint on their power and no one being able to remove them from their throne. This however is setting a kingdom up for failure as even though some people can be prone to violence, oppressing them with a monarch that controls them too harshly or that are disinterested in ruing a kingdom can cause an even more violent uprising which is displayed in the French revolution. Nonetheless, having a government body put in power is necessary as humans do require leadership and social order but that same government body must be held accountable if there are caught doing any wrongdoings that could severely hinder the progress of the community or create arduous situations to their

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    According to Hobbes, a government is needed to create social order. Because humans are naturally self-persevering, they are always in a state of conflict with one another. There are fundamental laws that a government set is place to restrain natural human…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Firstly, it has been argued that Charles was to blame for the long-term reasons such as wanting to make changes to religion, the power of the king and money. For example, Charles was partly to blame for money because he was trying to buy off the Scottish with £850 a day (which he could not afford) as a result from trying to make the Scottish Puritans. They rebelled and tried to attack. Charles was partly to blame for religious reasons like the one above, and some other reasons as well. He made William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury and he tried to make England a Catholic country. Also, he married a woman named Henrietta Maria. She was a Catholic, so naturally Parliament were concerned that England was going to return to Catholicism. Charles was to blame because of power. He let his friends help him with important decisions and Power. People did not approve of some of the choices they made such as raising taxes.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good 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
  • Good Essays

    England's history has been prosperous with phenomenal monarchs. However, in a time during The Restoration of the English Throne; history was introduced to King Charles II who would be permanently etched in the hearts of his subjects. The son of King Charles I of England; young Charles II’s life was one of turmoil and uncertainty as he witnessed his country thrown into a civil war. Charles was sent to exile as a child and spent his life plotting for his banished throne. After secret dealings with Scotland and conflict with a dissident named Cromwell; Charles eventually regained his rightful place as King of England. Riddled by accomplishments and failures; his reign was monumental enough to etch his name in history books as a significant English monarch.…

    • 471 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Firstly there was no law in English History that dealt with the trial of a monarch and the order was based on an ancient roman law. The public were not allowed into the court until the charge was read out. This leaves a lingering question as to why they would do this if the y felt that their case against Charles was just. Charles was not given a fair guilty verdict. There were only 135 judges in the jury some were Parliament, army officers and land owners. Out of the 135 judges only 80 showed up so he automatically had 55 judges pleading not guilty. 68 of the 80 judges said that Charles was guilty. So far in total there were 67 people who found him not guilty. Only 59 judges actually signed the death warrant. The odds were for Charles not being sent to death. The death warrant was not justified because the evidence did not support a guilty verdict. Charles refused to himself against the charges put forward by Parliament. Finally on 27th January 1649 when Charles refused to defend himself he was sentenced to death at the High Court of Justice meeting in Westminster Hall.…

    • 705 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles I created his own death because he insisted on ruling England without listening to parliament for example, Charles needed more money to fight the Scottish people so he needed to reopen parliament. The MPs used this as a chance to get together and criticise Charles. This made Charles weaker because parliament took this as an advantage and criticise him. And also this was ruining he’s reputation as a king because parliament was saying stuff that people didn’t know about and people knowing about this may have lost faith or felt annoyed about the king. But if the king listened to parliament then Charles wouldn’t be in war with the Scottish people and he’s reputation as a king wouldn’t go down and people would have respected him more even though he married a catholic. They would have been happy that parliament is there to support them and this wouldn’t lead him to his own death. Another example was in 1640 some MPs, such as John Pym criticised Charles I. Parliament passed new laws which controlled what Charles could or couldn’t do. For example, one new law said that Charles could not close down parliament unless parliament agreed. Charles didn’t like being criticised or told what to do by…

    • 1603 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    A comparison and contrast between Charles I and Louis XIV King Louis XIV: Outstanding example of absolute monarch Aim to make himself supreme in Europe Stringent religious toleration (change the Huguenots) King Charles I: Devine right of Kings (monarch's right to rule came from God) Conflicts with Parliament forced religion Wars There is an institution as old as the world : Monarchy-Kingship. In most places and in most times men have agreed to be governed by Kings, having found in such government something consonant to their nature.…

    • 1186 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes added to the ideas of democracy by creating the idea that all men are born bad with an urge for war. He stated that in order to have a stable society, government would be required to strictly watch and govern each citizen. He writes that man should give down their power to a much bigger government in order to maintain a single power that can help control the masses. This bigger…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout human history, the issue of power has been the source of countless wars and violence, and so has it sparked inspiration in many philosophers to develop potentially better systems of government. The Age of Enlightenment saw many philosophers sprout with new ideas on forms of government to replace or refine the archaic norm of absolute monarchy; one such controversial thinker was Thomas Hobbes. In his widely-recognized book, The Leviathan, he claimed that, because human beings are naturally selfish and evil, one must cede his or her rights to the absolute monarch so that peace can be established and maintained. However, if all human beings are cruel, then monarchs are not any different from the evil of those he rules. In William Golding’s 1954 novel The Lord of the Flies, Golding reflects Hobbes’ ideas about human nature as he depicts the governing of a cluster of stranded boys on an island, from the lack of cohesion of Ralph’s attempt to rationally lead them back to civilization, to Jack’s manipulation of the children into savagery. William Golding thus qualifies Thomas Hobbes’ position, supporting that humans are naturally selfish and evil but refuting his claim that an absolute ruler would make “wise” decisions through his illustration of Jack’s greed for power, hostile acts to Ralph and Piggy, and manipulation of his followers.…

    • 1210 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    When James I died in 1625, his son Charles became king. Upon becoming, the King Charles had a sense of greed growing, he would gain money through taxes and laws imposed only for the sense of profit and had been stubborn when it came to his ministers. He imposed a lot of trust in his ministers and was reluctant when it came to their dismissal. The Personal Rule was a period in which Charles governed without any reference to Parliament in the years 1629-1640; he refused to summon any Parliaments until they had a better understanding of what he wanted to do. Historians in a major of ways described this period, but how effective was the period of the Personal rule and had Charles succeeded in governing effectively and financially.…

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    9. There was ongoing tension with parliament over money - made worse by the costs of war abroad which was because of Charles.…

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Royalty is a term we like to associate with elegance, sophistication, and luxury. They’re the envy of all as they seem to live an extravagant lifestyle filled with exotic trips, an unlimited supply of money, and a stress-free life. But what is often overlooked, is the overwhelming responsibility they have to be the face of a country. Sir George Savile, a member of England’s King Charles II’s Privy Council, attempts to persuade his audience to think of King Charles II as a beloved individual who has suffered greatly, but refused to show it for the sake of his people. Savile succeeds in this by using metaphors, imagery, and allusion.…

    • 580 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Another reason why the relationship declined between Charles 1 and parliament was money. There were lots of things to do with this reason, for instance, in 1634; Charles invented an illegal tax called ‘ship money’. He made people living in coastal areas pay this tax to fund the navy. Charles had to agree to certain conditions in order for parliament to give him more money. As well as being an example for the problems with money, Charles was desperate for money so was forced to call his parliament back. This was an important reason why their relationship got worse because as he invented illegal taxes, Parliament were furious because it was illegal. Also, they knew that for all taxes, the king should get permission from parliament. They refused to give him permission but he collected it anyway.…

    • 532 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The reason why this could be argued for Charles being innocent is that it was the Parliament and the people who feared this and it had not become a threat yet.…

    • 778 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays