preview

Royal Absolutism In England In The 17th Century

Decent Essays

England in the 17th Century was in a constant state of dispute between the forces of the Stuart monarchs and Parliament. Disagreeing on almost everything, compromise proved not to be an option as the country was driven into Civil War from 1642-1649. The war between the Stuart dynasty and Parliament was what ultimately determined the breakdown of royal absolutism in England between 1603-1689. Because of their supposed “divine right”, the Stuart Kings neither able to create a beneficial relationship with their people nor maintain a financially stable government. Extremely unyielding personalities, they refused to compromise with Parliament. All of these factors led to the English Civil War, and following the war, understandably people wanted …show more content…

Wars in Spain during Elizabeth’s rule left substantial debt on the monarchy. Neither James nor his son Charles were suited for dealing with this type of economic pressure, and they crumbled as Parliament refused to grant them money due to distrust. Nevertheless, Parliament became weary of Charles’ un-parliamentary taxing, and granted him a sum of money if he agreed to the Petition of Right. The Petition of Right stated that nobody is compelled to pay any tax or loan “without common consent by act of Parliament”, and that no one should be imprisoned without due process of law. However, the agreement to the Petition of Right failed to stop him from attempting to modernize the navy with funds raised without parliamentary consent, otherwise known as “ship-money”. In 1635, Charles declared that the navy should be maintained, even in times of peace, and paid for by the country as a whole--even the inlands. Historically, the navy had been paid for by coastal towns because they were directly affected by it. However, Charles believed the whole nation was affected and therefore should pay. This ship-money dispute caused an already huge conflict to exacerbate, and neither a navy nor a stable government could be maintained. Through and through, the Stuarts were unable to maintain an economically …show more content…

During the last years of her reign, Parliament began to show signs of distrust and agitation with their lacking authority. Elizabeth fought off of the Spaniards, and while this temporarily secured the nation, it also left significant debt. Charles had no alternative but to declare war--he was in debt and Parliament refused to grant him money. However, neither James nor Charles would have had a problem if they compromised with Parliament. Their justification by divine right made them extremely obstinate. Referring to himself as God’s form on earth, James I declared “to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so it is sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.” Even though James I was in a difficult position at the beginning of his reign, he made the worst of it when he abstained from any form of compromise with Parliament. And, by doing this he put his form of rule--royal absolutism--in debate. The people finally started to realize that maybe his way of ruling wasn’t the best way, and called for

Get Access