During the s, his apparent determination to rule England without the assistance of Parliament, his introduction of all sorts of controversial financial measures and his support for 'high-church' religious practices aroused considerable alarm among his subjects. Many people, particularly the more zealous protestants, or 'puritans', came to fear that Charles was pursuing a hidden agenda: that he planned to remove his people's rights, or 'liberties', and to restore England to the Catholic fold.
When, in , Charles attempted to introduce a new form of prayer book in his northern kingdom of Scotland, a major rebellion erupted. The King did not have enough money to raise an army against the Scots and was therefore forced to summon a Parliament.
Yet the men who assembled at Westminster were unwilling to give the King the money he needed until their own grievances had been dealt with. The angry, disaffected members of Parliament seized political control and set about dismantling the hated instruments of the Personal Rule. During , Charles I's prerogative courts were abolished, his ministers arrested or forced to flee, and his unpopular financial expedients declared illegal.
To many contemporaries, it seemed that the kingdom's political problems were solved. In fact, they were only just beginning. In late this was no longer the case.
By this time a split had emerged in Parliament - and, still more dangerously, in the country at large - between those who wished for further reform, and those who felt that the recent changes had gone quite far enough. Friction was particularly apparent between religious conservatives, men and women who were happy with the Church of England as it had been established at the time of the Reformation, and more 'Godly' protestants', those who considered the Church to be 'but half reformed' and were determined to rid it of the 'rags and patches of Rome'.
As time went by, religious traditionalists became increasingly alienated from the more radical spirits and turned to the King for support. Charles thus found himself with a swelling political constituency and, emboldened by this change in his fortunes, he made a bold attempt to seize back the political initiative.
In January Charles strode into the Parliament house with a body of soldiers and demanded the persons of five MPs whom he had declared to be traitors.
The King's plan went badly wrong. Not only did the men he sought manage to escape, but public opinion was outraged by his action. London was soon in an uproar, and the King, fearing for his life, was forced to flee. War was now inevitable and over the next few months rival sides began to emerge across the country.
Among the peerage and the greater gentry, a majority favoured the King: partly, perhaps, because they felt bound to him by ties of personal loyalty, mainly because they saw him as the chief guarantor of the established social order.
Similar considerations influenced the lesser gentry. Among this group, too, it seems probable that supporters of the Crown outnumbered supporters of the Parliament, though by a considerably narrower margin.
Beneath the level of the gentry it is harder to make definite connections between social status and political allegiance. Many historians believe that the 'middling sort' of people were more inclined to favour Parliament than the King because Parliament's party was less rigidly hierarchical - and this may well have been so.
Yet, for the vast majority of ordinary men and women, it was factors other than those of 'class' or 'rank' which determined the eventual choice of sides. Some had no particular preference for either party, but joined up with the first army which happened to come along, in the hope of pay and plunder. Captain Carlo Fantom, one of the hundreds of foreign mercenaries who flocked to England during the Civil War, frankly admitted that 'I care not for your Cause, I Others found themselves forced to fight when they would much rather have stayed at home: tenants called out by their landlords, for example, and village rogues conscripted by parish constables who were anxious to see them gone.
Some were even compelled to fight at gunpoint. What Are the Disadvantages of a Monarchy? It is difficult to change the direction of a country under a monarchy.
Monarchies are supported by local tax policies. Tyranny is easier to form in the structure of a monarchy. Secession within a monarchy does not guarantee competency. List of Disadvantages of Monarchy It might lead to a poor leadership.
It does not allow democratic legitimacy. It might lead to having a leader who might not be as serious as needed. It lacks democratic accountability and liability. It invests much power and fame to a single individual. List of the Advantages of a Monarchy. A monarchy is regarded as one of the most stable forms of government. A constitutional monarchy is less prone to a forced takeover of the government when compared to other arrangements because it provides a dual support structure.
Ultra, abbreviation of ultraroyalist, French ultraroyaliste, the extreme right wing of the royalist movement in France during the Second Restoration — The revolution was precipitated by Charles X's publication July 26 of restrictive ordinances contrary to the spirit of the Charter of Definitions of female monarch.
Antonyms: Rex, king, male monarch. What is the difference between a royalist and a loyalist? Asked by: Miss Hallie Kirlin. What are the pros and cons of monarchy? Upon his death, his nine-year-old son was left with what remained of his royalist supporters. The Royalist is urgently contacting Russian Tatler to see this extraordinary document with our own eyes.
Kate is less than 12 weeks pregnant, a source confirmed to the Royalist. The Royalist has always maintained that Harry's red hair is a Spencer, not a Hewitt trait. No pictures of him cavorting naked in hotel rooms have yet been received by the Royalist.
Once—twice, the chorus of that old English Royalist song rose up out of the grove.
0コメント