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

To what extent was a revolution in England between 1642 and 1688?

Extracts from this document...


To what extent was a revolution in England between 1642 and 1688? What was the English revolution really a revolution? Or was it selfish men trying to steal power from each other? Where were the limits to the revolution introduced? In the dictionary, a revolution is described as: "A revolution is a violent attempt by a group of people to change the political system of the country, a complete turn that is an important change in an area of human activity." So was what I've studied in the section fit that definition, well I can't yet say a definite answer until I have analysed the events carefully. However, I do think that the definition is correct though it wasn't a whole turn of the country because different leaders of England constantly repeated many things. Also, it's not right to say that this was set particularly on a political matter there were many other large issues that surrounded. I wonder if people who were not a member of the public wanted a war to take place because they seemed eager to fight any opposition to get power for them. ...read more.


However, if you look at1688 the points are stricter: * Must call Parliament every three years * Cannot be a Catholic * Cannot raise without Parliament's consent * Cannot have an army in peacetime * Chosen by Parliament * Cannot suspend laws You'll see that there is more control of Parliament and when you compare the difference that it is the complete opposite to each statement. However the revolution extended to a limit, it wasn't a total turn over to the political system because many laws abided by the Kings in 1642 were still used by Parliament and obeyed by many through Britain. The only thing that had a major change was religion, which through the past years has being altering with the leaders of the country. The revolution in my opinion, took a step towards control, I think Britain needed strict laws because anybody who was anybody was doing things out of the country's limits. Especially the Kings, who thought that they had the right to treat the public as their personal bank, to get money that the people themselves, who probably cannot afford the price asked. ...read more.


Parliament looked like angels at the this stage, giving way for the Royals however they were slowly getting the power needed to over rule and ordering things that the King obeyed! In 1646, the Royalists were defeated by the Parliament in the first leg of the Civil War and then the second started in 1648 however was also ended by Parliament by 1649, when Charles was held on a trial. Many people would argue that this was a very unfair and ludicrous act because Charles was the king, could it be possible to charge a King in his own courts for action that he himself did not do and for actions that Parliament also done. Between 1649 and 1660 Britain didn't have a monarch, it was a Republic because many people didn't have an idea how to control a disaster. Though, Oliver Cromwell a smart man with ideas was noticed and advised to be the next leader. Never the less, many were afraid that he would be similar to Charles as things started repeating itself, with the equivalent problems recurring. It looked from a point that there was going to be another rebellion. Cromwell realising this fled to another country. ...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. Marked by a teacher

    Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?

    5 star(s)

    The gentry, who saw it as a threat to social hierarchy, did not appreciate the Major Generals. The following types of government, The Instrument of Government and then the Humble Petition and Advice became more and more monarchical and Cromwell was even offered the crown. Naturally this won conservative approval.

  2. Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?

    entertainment; but he lived in luxury, which was against Puritan beliefs and principles. Some views implied he mimicked kingship, thus killing the King only for another, but he wasn't "God's anointed leader". Although the army despised him, he had to use them to rule the country to enforce law, making him seem a bully and a dictator.

  1. An unmitigated disaster. How valid is this assessment of Oliver Cromwells experiment with the ...

    Barnard, The English Republic, 1649-1660, 1982) Though, this may have bounced off the other Major Generals as the reactivated some of the social and economic laws. This led to immoral ministers being rooted out and being replaced by more thorough preachers and those who were considered idle were prevented from entering unknown districts.

  2. What was the most significant cause of civil strife in England from 1455-61?

    can be no uncertainty about the fact he is a main contributor to the conflict, it should be made clear that he is in no way the most significant cause. Like virtually all the other short term causes of civil strife, the impact Richard had can be linked back to the ever-inept Henry VI.

  1. In your opinion, who is most to blame for the outcome in “On the ...

    She seems to have a little understanding for a lot of things. She is young and her lack of education and understanding give her a lot less power over her actions than the rest of the characters. For her age, she does have a lot to take on.

  2. How united was Britain in 1688?

    Similarly, a chronological examination of the year 1688 would yield interesting shifts in unity, but would fail to explain the events of late 1688. Again I do not suggest that such an examination is unjustified, but rather that it is not as useful an explanation of the 1688 Revolution as an inquiry into unity in the body politic.

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