• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The following essay intends to assess how far religion can be blamed for the growing tensions between both James I and Charles I and their Parliaments between 1618 and 1629.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The following essay intends to assess how far religion can be blamed for the growing tensions between both James I and Charles I and their Parliaments between 1618 and 1629. It will therefore look at all aspects of a Kings power such as religion, finance, foreign policy in order o find out the extent to which religion can be blamed for these tensions, and come to a conclusion as to what other factors had a role in both creating and expanding those existing tensions. James I came to power in England in 1603, bringing with him his beliefs of the 'Divine Right of King,' believing that he was only answerable to God. This religious belief therefore made it impossible for parliament to intervene in the role of the country to the extent that they had done under the reign of Elizabeth I. This caused the initial tension between King and Parliament, as they were unhappy with the way they were treated- James was unwilling to listen to criticism of his unpopular diplomatic schemes. ...read more.

Middle

This tension was further built when James allowed Richard Montagu, an Armenian to publish a book about Arminianism. Shortly after his, March 1625, James died, and Charles I took his position as King of England. The Thirty Years was could also be looked at from a political point of view. This war forced James to summon parliament 1621 due to financial pressures. This was mainly concerned with foreign policy, so when the House of Commons tried to debate the wider aspects of this and assert their right to discuss any subject, as previously agreed by James he dissolved them. This caused further tensions between King and Parliament, as James' lack to keep prior agreements meant that the Parliament were being made powerless within a country whereby their role was to assist the king in decision making in order to deliver the best prospects to its people. These tensions, in effect, distanced the King and Parliament, making their "united jobs" within the country non-evident, possibly due to James' religious beliefs of the 'Divine Rights of Kings.' ...read more.

Conclusion

Again, this matter was made worse due to Charles' present favourites, Richard Montagu, who was made Royal Chaplin, later becoming Bishop of Chichester and William Laud becoming Bishop of London. Both of these were Arminians so the Parliament instantly disliked these decisions, made worse by the fact that these new positions within England allowed them to have a greater influence over the King (especially as they stressed obedience to authority), something which not even they had managed to obtain. Overall, it is clear that the relationship between King and Parliament steadily eroded. This was caused not only by religion, but also by a number of contributing factors such as extravagant pending, and bungled foreign policies, which discredited the Kings in the eyes of Parliament. Therefore, it can be said that religion played a strong part in creating the growing tensions between king and parliament between 1618 and 1629 but it was not the sole factor. It could equally be argued that tensions between King and Parliament centred around finances, and matters such as the costs of war abroad, religion and foreign policy simply added to this central, strongest and most significant tension. Finance! ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Why did Charles' relationship with Parliament deteriorate between 1625-1629? ...

    Charles demanded a forced loan; all gentry had to pay him a fixed amount of money or they would suffer the consequences of imprisonment or conscription into the army. Britain suffered greatly for its lack of a definite constitution. Specific rights and powers of the king were not established in

  2. Why was there a breakdown in relationship between king and parliament in 1629?

    There was one such case with the five of England's nobility and gentry. They were taken to court for refusal to pay the forced loans and Charles paid out the judges. One of the judges who refused to be bought out was removed from the trial.

  1. How far were James I's problems inherited, how far of his own making?

    and found it here when I arrived, so that I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid of"2. The idea that James moved from a sluggish Parliament in Scotland to an active one in England is 'hardly supported by the evidence'3.

  2. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    Henrietta Maria was Spanish and openly Catholic. This caused further controversy when Charles's son was born. This is so because it was believed that Charles (II) was being educated in the Roman Catholic faith and therefore the future king would be a Catholic. Parliament was dominated by protestants so they did not like this and it heightened

  1. Meddling and troublesome(TM)- how accurate a description is this of Elizabeth I(TM)s parliaments?

    The fact that this was not received with widespread dissatisfaction indicates respect for Elizabeth's wishes and trust in her intentions and actions. It appears that Parliament realised that this matter should be left in Elizabeth's own hands for the time being.

  2. Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629?

    The last topic with some specific significance to why Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629 was Parliament's attempts to stop what they saw as abuses of royal powers, and Charles's reaction to these. To ensue that the Privy Council followed him even when Parliament didn't, Charles eliminated opponents, which narrowed the

  1. Assess the validity of the view that the Rump and Barebones parliaments had no ...

    The major achievement on the law front was the abolishment of the use of Latin and stylised handwriting in court records so now more people could understand. However once more not that a great amount was achieved. Again only 3% of acts passed were about the reform of law.

  2. How far was foreign policy the main cause of conflict between Crown and Parliament ...

    When Charles called his 1st parliament in June 1625 hostilities toward the crown were evident. Parliament remained opposed to the Catholic French Treaty and had granted money for war, a declaration of which had not been made. Against their wishes, the money had been spent on a land war in

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work