The Stuart Idea and Practice of Monarchy

James ICharles I

Charles IIJames III

Early English monarchs had considerable power, but generally accepted advice and some limitations on their authority.

However, later kings, such as King John, often ignored these restrictions, and powerful barons opposed John’s dictorial rule by forcing him to sign Magna Carta in 1215.

A General Overview

Magna Carta protected the feudal aristocracy rather than the ordinary citizen, but it came to be regarded as a cornerstone of British liberties.

It restricted the monarch’s powers; forced him to take advice; increased the influence of the aristocracy; and stipulated that no citizen could be punished or kept in prison without fair trial.

These developments encouraged the establishment of parliamentary structures.

1265 - Simon de Montfort called nobles and non-aristocrats to form a Council or Parliament.

1295 - the Model Parliament of Edward I, which was the first representative English Parliament. ◦ consisted of two sections1. the Lords/Bishops 2. the Commons (comprising male commoners).

However, the Parliament was too large to rule the country effectively.

A Privy Council, ◦ the monarch and court advisers◦ the royal government outside Parliament, until it lost power to parliamentary structures in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Although Parliament now had some limited powers against the monarch, there was a return to royal dominance in Tudor England.

The nobility had been weakened by wars and internal conflicts (the Wars of the Roses), and monarchs chose landed gentry as members of their Privy Councils, thıus making them dependent upon royal patronage.

Monarchs controlled Parliament and summoned it only when they needed to raise money.

Parliament showed more resistance to royal rule under the Stuart monarchy

using its weapon of financial control. influenced by the gentry, who had now become more independent of the Crown and had a majority in the House of Commons.

Parliament began to refuse royal requests for money.

forced Charles I to sign the Petition of Rights in 1628, which further restricted the monarch’s powers and prevented him from raising taxes without Parliament’s consent.

Charles ignored these political developments, until he was obliged to summon Parliament for finance.

Parliament refused the request. Realizing that he could not control Parliament, Charles next attempted to arrest parliamentary leaders in the House of Commons itself.

His failure to do so meant that the monarch was in future prohibited from entering the Commons.

Charles’s rejection of parliamentary ideals and belief in his right to rule without opposition provoked anger against the Crown, and a Civil War broke out in 1642.

The Protestant Parliamentarians under Oliver Cromwell won the military struggle against the Catholic Royalists.

Charles was beheaded in 1649 and the monarchy was abolished.

England was ruled under a Protectorate by Cromwell and his son Richard between 1649 and 1660, and Parliament effectively comprised only the House of Commons.

However, Cromwell’s Protectorate was harsh and unpopular, and most people wanted the restoration of the monarchy.

The two Houses of Parliament were re-established, and in 1660 they restored Charles II to the throne.

In the beginning, Charles cooperated with Parliament, but his financial needs, belief in royal authority and support of the Catholic cause lost him popular and parliamentary backing.

Parliament ended his expensive wars and imposed further restrictions.

The growing power of Parliament against the monarch in the seventeenth century was reflected in the development of more organized political parties.

These derived largely from the ideological and religious conflicts of the Civil War.

the Whigs and the Tories◦ the Whigs were mainly Cromwellian Protestants and gentry, who did not accept the Catholic sympathizer James II as successor to Charles II and wanted religious freedom for all Protestants.

◦ the Tories generally supported royalist beliefs, and helped Charles II to secure James’s right to succeed him.

James’s behaviour caused a reduction in royal influence.

attempted to rule without Parliament and ignored its laws.

His manipulations forced the Tories to join the Whigs in inviting the Protestant William of Orange to intervene.

William arrived in England in 1688, James fled to France, and William succeeded to the throne as England’s first constitutional monarch.

The Glorious Revolution. ◦ Royal powers were further restricted under the Declaration of Rights (1689), which strengthened Parliament and provided some civil liberties.

◦ It was thus difficult for future monarchs to reign or act without Parliament’s consent, and the Act of Settlement (1701) gave religious freedom to all Protestants.

the Stuart dynasty did not transplant well in England.

brought with them exalted concepts of kingship which took little account of the changed circumstances of their new country, and parlicularly of the much greater importance of the English parliament.

Catholic inclinations◦ their association with Mary, queen of Scots◦ Charles I’s marriage to Henrietta Maria, a Catholic princess

◦ Charles II’s marriage to Catherine of Braganze, another Catholic

◦ James II’s personal conversion and marriage to Mary of Modena

These split the dynasty from its natural supporters among the Anglican gentry.

Stuarts

They could not redeem themselves by prowess in war. “James I’s campaigns were ineffective, Charles I’s disastrous, Charles II’s humiliating, and James II’s ludicrous.”

The first kings of the United Kingdom. King James I of England who began the period was also King James VI of Scotland, thus combining the two thrones for the first time.

The Stuart dynasty reigned in England and Scotland from 1603 to 1714, a period which saw a flourishing Court culture but also much upheaval and instability, of plague, fire and war.

James IV of Scotland Son of Mary, queen of Scots His claim to the English throne was that both his parents were descendants of Margaret Tudor, elder sister of Henry VIII

James I succeeded the last Tudor monarch, Elizabeth I, in 1603. James at the time of Elizabeth’s death was king of Scotland. He was also the nearest blood relative to Elizabeth.

James I of EnglandJames IV of Scotland

In Scotland, James never had full control of the country. Scotland was seen as ungovernable in parts – governed solely by the clans. James was proclaimed king of Scotland in 1567 – aged 1 – after the enforced abdication of his mother, Mary, queen of Scots.

In his early years, James developed a great desire for knowledge but it also gave him an over inflated idea as to his own worth as an academic. He believed that he was capable of out-arguing almost anyone. It was a character defect that was to bring him into conflict with the English Parliament and it was his inability to accept that others might be right that was to provoke many strong reactions in London.

“James’s theoretical view of monarchy was lofy but, though he brooded long on the duties of kingship, he had little natural dignity, drinking too much, caressing his young male favourites in public, and alternating between primness and coarse bawdy.”

He had learning, memory, and intelligence, but he relied too much on his favourites, his manners were crude, he was passive and had a very high opinion of himself.

James was a fervent believer in the Divine Right of Kings. He had a high opinion as to his academic ability. He also held in high regard his ability to be a king. In Scotland, he had faced a lawless society where many lords simply ruled as they wished in their own area. By the time of his departure for London in 1603, James had done a great deal to tame the Scottish nobility and this had greatly boosted his own belief in his ability to be king. He described himself as “an old experienced king, needing no lessons.”

While in Scotland, James had done a great deal of reading about statecraft. He had also produced a book in 1603 titled “The True Law of Free Monarchies”. The theories in this book were not original but they did state with extreme clarity his belief that kings had absolute legal sovereignty within their state, that a king had absolute freedom from executive action and that a king’s sole responsibility was to God.

Robert Cecil and Richard Bancroft They helped James with political and religious issues.

Catholics in England had expected James to be more tolerant of them. In fact, he had proved to be the opposite and had ordered all Catholic priests to leave England. This angered some Catholics and they decided to kill James and put his daughter Elizabeth on the throne ensuring that she was a Catholic. This led to a plot to kill not only the king of England, James, but also everyone sitting in the Houses of Parliament at the same time as James was there when he opened Parliament on November 5th, 1605.

Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators, having rented out a house right by the Houses of Parliament,  managed to get 36 barrels of gunpowder into a cellar of the House of Lords.

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605

The explosive expert, Guy Fawkes, had been left in the cellars to set off the fuse. He was only caught when a group of guards decided to check the cellars at the last moment.

He was arrested and sent to the Tower of London where he was tortured and eventually gave away the names of the fellow conspirators. The orders to use whatever means of torture was required to get information from Fawkescame from James.

Some believe that the whole plot was a government conspiracy to convince James that Catholics could not be trusted. 

Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, hated Catholics and saw them as a constant source of trouble. He also feared that there was a chance that James would be lenient  with them during his reign and this could not be tolerated. He wanted to remove Catholicism from England as he saw it as a threat.

What better way to get James to severely persecute the Catholics in England than to get him to believe that they had tried to kill him in this very violent manner?

How did the conspirators get hold of 36 barrels of gunpowder without drawing attention to themselves?

How was the gunpowder moved across London from the Tower of London to Westminster without anyone seeing it? 

Why were men who were known to be Catholics allowed to rent out a house so near to the Houses of Parliament?

How did they move 36 barrels from that house to the cellar of the Houses of Parliament without anyone noticing along with hay, straw etc?

Why, for the first time in history, was there a search of Parliament's cellars that conveniently found Guy Fawkes before he lit the fuse?

Some historians have pointed out these issues and claimed that the plotters were pawns in the hands of Robert Cecil and that he orchestrated the whole affair in his bid to get James to ban Catholics altogether.

The public execution of those conspirators who were caught was a stern reminder of what would happen to anyone else foolish enough to involve themselves with treason. However, there was no large-scale hunting down of Catholics in England – possibly because the retribution against the conspirators had been so violent – and public – that it drove them even further underground.

The attempt on the life of James – and Parliament in general – helped to build a more positive relationship between the two.

James had publicly stated that if the explosion had succeeded, he would have died with the “most honourable and best company and in that most honourable and fittest place for a king to be in.”

The 1606 Parliamentary session voted James three subsidies in direct taxation.

With this new relationship with Parliament and their seeming wish to grant subsidies, James became more and more extravagant.

He became a lavish spender and this was mirrored by his wife, Anne of Denmark. James also gave away lavish gifts. One courtier who had worked under Elizabeth I, Sir Dudley Carleton, claimed that James gave away more in one year than Elizabeth had done in the whole of her 45-year reign.

The need for money was to be a dominating factor in his reign as James I of England.

To compensate for any requirement of money, James, like Elizabeth, sold off Crown Lands.

To raise money James sold government offices and positions. This had been a common practice but James took it to an extreme in his search for money. By selling office titles, he did not consider the ability and worth of the man who bought the office – merely his income and ability to pay.

Therefore, in the eyes of men who had received an office in reward for their work for their country, James was seriously devaluing their work and achievement. This was to cause resentment – but it also brought into government men with money but possibly not the ability to fulfil to the full the work that the purchased office required.

What caused even more resentment was James’s favourites.

He was neither close to his wife nor children, but his favourites were always around him and he was generous towards them.

An example. George Villiers.◦ 1616 - Viscount Villiers◦ 1617 – Earl of Buckingham◦ 1618 – Marquess of Buckingham◦ 1623 – Duke of Buckingham

James’s private life was dominated by his love of hunting.

James had become keen on hunting in his youth but now as King of England, it became almost an obsession. The bulk of his year was oriented around hunting.

This made communication with his ministers very difficult as only the most favoured had access to James when he had finished a hunt.

From the earliest years of his accession, James made mistakes. He tried to personalise politics by promoting to positions of authority his favourites; he believed that he, as an academic, had a correct answer to all problems; his behaviour, amusing at first and tolerated, eventually brought the royal court into disrepute; his closest friends were also greatly suspect for a conservative court and his dilution of positions of rank also caused friction

He tried to create a religious concensus. Although it was not a total failure, there were many who was left dissatisfied.

He also tried to create a governmental union between his two kingdoms, Scotland and England, but he handled the matter badly. The English Parliament was half-hearted, and the declaration of Great Britain had to be made by royal proclamation.

A union of England and Scotland was sensible, but James showed little understanding of the apprehensions of his English subjects.

James was not a successful statesman. His upbringing had led to him developing a hatred of war and any foreign policy that might result in war was quickly discarded.

Though James wanted to avoid any foreign policy that might lead to conflict, he did not allow anyone else to formulate policy. He sort the advice of many but failed to act on any of this advice. This infuriated all and sundry and resulted in a muddled foreign policy.

Macaulay, History of England “On the day of the accession of James the First England descended from the rank which she had hitherto held, and began to be regarded as a power hardly of the second order. During many years the great British monarchy, under four successive princes of the House of Stuart, was scarcely a more important member of the European system than the little kingdom of Scotland had previously been. This, however, is little to be regretted.”

“Of James the First, as of John, it may be said that, if his administration had been able and splendid, it would probably have been fatal to our country, and that we owe more to his weakness and meanness than the wisdom and courage of much better sovereigns. He came to the throne at a critical moment. The time was fast approaching when either the King must become absolute, or the Parliament must control the whole executive administration.”

“Had James been, like Henry the Fourth, [...] a valiant, active, and politic ruler, had he put himself at the head of the Protestants of Europe, [...], had he found himself, after the great achievements, at the head of fifty thousand troops, brave, well disciplined, and devotedly attached to his person, the English Parliament would soon have been nothing more than a name. Happily he was not a man to play such a part.”

“He began his administration by putting an end to the war which had raged during many years between England and Spain; and from that time he shunned hostilities with caution which was proof against the insults of his neighbours and the clamours of his subjects. Not till the last year of his life could the influence of his son, his favourite, his Parliament, and his people combined, induce him to strike one feeble blow in defence of his family and of his religion.”

Charles was the second son of James I.

He was a quiet person who tended to stay in the background as he had a stammer.

He was a good linguist and developed a great love of art.

He was also a very religious man and he preferred church services to be grand and full of ritual and colour. This was to lead to a clash with many in England who preferred  plain and simple services.

Charles I

Charles also angered many by having favourites at court. His most favoured advisor was the Duke of Buckingham who was murdered in 1628. Parliament agreed that Charles could pick his own advisors but only if the person appointed was acceptable to them.

Constant arguments with Parliament over many issues lead Charles to lock out Members of Parliament for 11 years - from 1629 to 1640 (the so-called Eleven Years Tyranny). 

Charles as king could do this under what was known as Royal Prerogative. The fact that Parliament was locked out was not a cause of much anger to the people of England. What did anger them were the methods Charles used to collect money. This he did by himself and without the support of Parliament.

In 1637, Charles tried to impose a new prayer book on the Scots - he had been crowned King of Scotland in 1633. The Scots wanted simple and plain prayer services while the new prayer book required more ritual and grandeur. This clash lead to the Scots invading England and occupying Durham and Newcastle.

In November 1640, Charles was forced into recalling Parliament as only they had the money needed to finance a war with the Scots or, as happened, giving the Scots a sum of money to get them to leave England and return to Scotland. Parliament was only willing to assist the king if he agreed to◦ remove his two chief advisors◦ declare Ship Money to be illegal◦ never dismiss Parliament without Parliament agreeing to this. If, for whatever reason, parliament was dismissed, no more than three years could pass before a new one was called

Such demands clearly challenged Charles‘s belief in the divine right of kings to govern as they saw fit.  Both king and Parliament were on a collision course. In 1642, Charles attempted to arrest his 5 leading critics in Parliament. They had fled to the safety of the city of London and it became obvious that conflict was all but inevitable.

Charles had certain beliefs when it came to politics. With regards to politics, it was generally the case that Charles or his favourites knew best and if individuals did not agree with the king, the fault lay with them.

He shared his father’s belief in the Divine Right of Kings. As a result, Charles was to frequently take a stand and a position on a topic and refuse to shift or modify his beliefs regardless of what arguments were put before him. It would be a character trait that would have disastrous consequences, as he grew older.

Charles also saw little reason why he as king should explain any of his decisions. He believed that as a king had made a decision, it should be adhered to and certainly not argued with. As a result of this approach, Charles got off to a bad start with the House of Commons in 1625 when he refused to explain the logic of his foreign policy to them.

The Commons accused Buckingham of giving Charles incompetent advice and refused to grant Charles tunnage and poundage duties for life.

The talk of accusing Buckingham led to the Commons being dissolved.

The second Parliament of Charles gathered in 1626. 

The Commons refused Charles further taxes and talked openly about accusing Buckingham. The response of Charles to this was to dissolve Parliament once again in June 1626. 

Charles had also lost the support of the House of Lords as a result of his treatment of John Digby, the Earl of Bristol. It showed those in the House of Lords how the king could potentially treat all of them. Bristol was seen as being one of the Lord’s senior figures and if Charles could treat him in such a manner, he could treat all of them accordingly.

Less than two years into his reign, Charles had managed to anger both houses of Parliament and upset some highly influential men in both houses. It did not bode well for the future.

Charles financed a war with France by resorting to measures that were bound to only intensify the anger felt against the king.

The gentry were invited to contribute to a forced loan.

Those who failed to pay were thrown in jail.

Maritime ports were ordered to pay for any improvement required in the navy.

Troops were camped on the public. Charles also ordered that several counties be placed under martial law.

In March 1628, a new parliament was called.

The Commons decided to launch a campaign that would limit the king’s power of arbitrary imprisonment.

They decided to use a ‘Petition of Right’ which was meant to defend ‘ancient, sober and vital liberties’.

The Petition stated that arbitrary imprisonment (without a stated reason), taxation without Parliament’s consent, billeting of the army on the public and subjecting civilians to martial law were all illegal.

Charles gave his “royal word” to uphold the Petition but this was not good enough for the Commons. Just two years into his reign, he had lost Parliament and his “word” simply was not deemed good enough. Parliament wanted the Petition to have full legality and in an instance where Charles climbed down, he gave the Royal Assent to the Petition of Right on June 7th 1628.

People concerned with the church reforms that were taking place. The religious advisor to Charles was William Laud, Bishop of Bath and Wells. He was a strong believer in royal absolutism and he expected his followers to also support this belief.

Charles used this opportunity to assert his authority in religious matters and in the second half of 1628 he moved Laud to become Archbishop of London.

He also issued a royal declaration that reform of the church was no concern of Parliament.

Parliament reassembled in 1629 and dissolved because of the differences in opinion among MPs, as some of them went to extremes to get their points across.

The speed of those who moved to support Charles and the numbers involved all but convinced Charles that he must be right. The concept of the Divine Right of Kings was, in the mind of Charles, conclusively proven.

Charles began to believe that he was infallible and that any problems that arose were caused by anyone else except the king himself. For the next eleven years, Charles aided by his small group of advisors, ruled without a Parliament,the so-called ‘Eleven Years Tyranny’.

The English Civil War has many causes but the personality of Charles I must be counted as one of the major reasons. 

Charles was arrogant, conceited and a strong believer in the divine rights of kings. He had witnessed the damaged relationship between his father and Parliament, and considered that Parliament was entirely at fault. He found it difficult to believe that a king could be wrong. His conceit and arrogance were eventually to lead to his execution.

Road to the Civil War

From 1625 to 1629, Charles argued with parliament over most issues, but money and religion were the most common causes of arguments. 

In 1629, Charles copied his father. He refused to let Parliament meet. Members of Parliament arrived at Westminster to find that the doors had been locked with large chains and padlocks. They were locked out for eleven years.

Charles ruled by using the Court of Star Chamber. To raise money for the king, the Court heavily fined those brought before it. Rich men were persuaded to buy titles. If they refused to do so, they were fined the same sum of money it would have cost for a title anyway.

In 1635 Charles ordered that everyone in the country should pay Ship Money. This was historically a tax paid by coastal towns and villages to pay for the upkeep of the navy. The logic was that coastal areas most benefited from the navy's protection. Charles decided that everyone in the kingdom benefited from the navy's protection and that everyone should pay.

Charles also clashed with the Scots. He ordered that they should use a new prayer book for their church services. This angered the Scots so much that they invaded England in 1639. As Charles was short of money to fight the Scots, he had to recall Parliament in 1640 as only they had the necessary money needed to fight a war and the required authority to collect extra money.

By 1642, relations between Parliament and Charles had become very bad. Charles had to do as Parliament wished as they had the ability to raise the money that Charles needed. However, as a firm believer in the "divine right of kings", such a relationship was unacceptable to Charles.

In 1642, he went to Parliament with 300 soldiers to arrest his five biggest critics. Someone close to the king had already tipped off Parliament that these men were about to be arrested and they had already fled to the safety of the city of London where they could easily hide from the king. 

Only six days after trying to arrest the five Members of Parliament, Charles left London to head for Oxford to raise an army to fight Parliament for control of England.

Charles I was the first of our monarchs to be put on trial for treason and it led to his execution. 

No law could be found in all England’s history that dealt with the trial of a monarch so the order setting up the court that was to try Charles was written by a Dutch lawyer called Issac Dorislaus and he based his work on an ancient Roman law which stated that a military body (in this case the government) could legally overthrow a tyrant. 

The Trial and Execution of Charles I

He was accused of being "tyrant, traitor and murderer; and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England.“

He was to be tried by 135 judges who would decide if he was guilty or not. In fact only 68 turned up for the trial. In fact, there were plenty of MP’s in Parliament who did not want to see the king put on trial they had been stopped from going into Parliament by some soldiers. The only people allowed into Parliament were those who Cromwell thought supported the trial of the king.

This Parliament was known as the "Rump Parliament" and of the 46 men allowed in, who were considered to be supporters of Cromwell, only 26 voted to try the king.

The accusation against Charles was that he “out of a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people of England."

At the trial, Charles refused to defend himself. He did not recognise the legality of the court. He also refused to take off his hat as a sign of respect to the judges who did attend.

The judgment of the court was:◦ "he, the said Charles Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy to the good of this nation, shall be put to death by severing of his head from his body."

There was a delay in his execution. The man who was to execute Charles refused to do it. So did others. Somebody was found and paid to do the job. They were also allowed to wear masks so that noone would ever know who they were.

Charles had asked to wear thick underclothes under his shirt as he was very concerned that if he shivered in the cold, the crowd might think that he was scared. 

After the execution, spectators were allowed to go up to the scaffold and, after paying, dip handkerchiefs in his blood as it was believed that the blood of a king when wiped onto a wound, illness etc. would cure that illness.

On the 6th February, 1649, the monarchy was abolished. 

Parliament statement: "the office of the king in this nation is unnecessary, burdensome and dangerous to the liberty, society and public interest of the people.“

When Charles II returned to become king of England in 1660, those men who had signed his father’s death warrant were tried as regicides and executed. Anyone associated with the execution of Charles I was put on trial. The only people to escape were the executioners as no-one knew who they were as they wore masks during the execution.

son of Charles I restored to the throne in 1660 his reign is famous for the Great Plague (1665) that primarily affected London and the Great Fire of London (1666)

Charles II

His formal education ended when the Civil War broke out in 1642.

In 1645, Charles, the heir to the Crown, had to flee England. He spent the next five years as a royal refugee in Jersey, France and the Netherlands.

 He lead some rebellions against the English government but was defeated.

Cromwell’s domestic policies did not endear him to the English 

By the time of his death, Cromwell had created a society whereby you were either for Cromwell or against him, with little in between.

Many celebrated his death and between 1658 and 1660, it became clear to the government that the restoration of the monarchy was of vital importance if society itself was not going to fragment.

General Monck, who was commander of the Protectorate’s army in Scotland and a well-respected person, believed that the only way to unify the country was for the restoration of monarchy with Parliament governing the country.

In this way the people would have an individual to rally around while Parliament continued to represent the will of the people when it came to decision-making.

Monck’s loyal army had a good reputation at a time when the armies of Parliament elsewhere in the land were being seriously weakened by desertions. Also, he had always maintained connections with Royalists so it was only a matter of time before he and Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, discussed the terms of any potential restoration.

Clarendon, negotiated the Restoration Settlement on behalf of Charles.

The final settlement was based on the Declaration of Breda  ◦ April 1660◦ no one would be held to account for their part in the Civil War

◦ this removal of the fear of revenge very much cleared the way for the return of the king in exile

Charles promised◦ liberty of conscience◦ a land settlement and arrears of pay for the army.

However, Parliament was to work out the details of these intentions. Parliament wanted to make it clear that they would not tolerate any similar behaviour associated with Charles I.

Charles landed at Dover, Kent, on May 25th, 1660.

The Restoration was a highly popular event.

For eleven years, there had been no monarchy but the Restoration Settlement brought back from exile the son of the beheaded Charles I. 

Many were happy that the old order had been reinstalled as they saw the monarchy as the normal state of affairs within the country.

One of the first acts of the new government was to introduce an Act of Indemnity and Pardon. This act forgave and pardoned people for past actions (though it was eventually to exclude those classed as regicides) and it allowed the new monarch a fresh start. Great things were expected from Charles II.

from 1649 to 1660 unprecedented no ‘rule book’ that could be referred to with regards to constitutional niceties

two main bodies involved in decision making at the start of the reign was the Convention Parliament of 1660 and the Cavalier Parliament of 1661

Both recognised that the main aims for the country were stability and order and it is these that both bodies sought to achieve.

the Restoration Settlement

The Convention Parliament met from April to December 1660

had to deal with the Restoration and the problems left by the Interregnum

The first problem faced by this parliament was that it was divided on what powers to give Charles II.

The Presbyterians wanted such power to be limited while others, in an attempt to avoid the rise of another Oliver Cromwell, pushed for Charles to have far more power than was first anticipated.

The issue involving land During the Interregnum much land belonging to the Crown, the Church and Royalist supporters had been taken by the government or by its supporters.

With the Restoration, many simply assumed that their former property would be restored. They assumed that because they had been loyal to Charles, that he would be loyal to them. However, it was not as easy as this as the land had, in many instances, been purchased in good faith and the new property owners were clearly not willing to simply hand it back to the old owners when they believed that they had the legal title to this land.

The issue concerning army could become a danger to Charles II Also, Parliament had to take into account was that the army was expensive to maintain.

The best way round this was to reduce the number of men in the army

However, enforced unemployment would only cause problems, so the government had to find a way around this.

George Monck and desertation within the ranks solved this problem

The power that Charles - open to debate Charles was invited back by Parliament. So, Parliament had the power.

But, Parliament did not have the support of the people.

The crowds that gathered to greet Charles showed that the new king and probably the concept of monarchy had great support

Charles arrived in London with many powers that had been removed from his father. He could select his ministers and summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament.

A finacial settlement Charles would receive a certain sum of money every year and this money will come from Crown lands, custom duties and new excise duties on certain commodities.

In return Charles had to surrender the Crown’s old feudal rights, such as wardships, and his prerogative powers over taxation. Therefore, Charles could not levy taxes without Parliamentary agreement.

In times of war, he had to ask Parliament for additional money.

Though the raising of revenue had been the major cause of war between Charles I and Parliament, it was not a major issue between Charles II and Parliament.

1661 - when a general election brought in a Parliament with a majority of Royalists in it

the Cavalier Parliament While the Cavalier Parliament was unwilling to give up any of its powers, it was also not willing to have any clash with the king

In a gesture of loyalty, Parliament also declared that the king was the sole controller of the militia in the land.

1. the unpopularity of the army and religious policies at the time. The austerity of the rule of Cromwell, enforced by the army, had run its course.

2. divisions within the republican leadership.

3. within the army there was also a decrease in the desire for a new order to be created.

4. the government had singularly failed to solve social issues in the country and that corruption in the government was getting out of control.

Why was there a restoration?

5. The death of Oliver Cromwell was also a major stimulus for change. By 1659, the country faced a form of political limbo. His son, Richard, succeeded Cromwell. But he lacked two major qualities to succeed. 

6. General Monck and Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon

Charles himself was too astute to get himself involved in similar political situations to his father

He was also lazy and preferred enjoying himself to involving himself in political intrigue.

Charles had many mistresses while King of Great Britain. Probably the most famous was Nell Gwynn.

Charles acknowledged that he fathered fourteen illegitimate children.

However, despite his reputation for licentious behaviour, Charles was not totally passive when it came to Parliament and politics

gained a reputation as a man whole could hold his own in politics when required to do so

succeeded his brother, Charles II The early life of James was dominated by the English Civil War and spent in exile

While abroad, James fought with both the French and Spanish armies

When Charles retuned to Britain as Charles II, James also returned as Duke of York

seen as being dull, slow and incapable of grasping the politics of the day

James II

To Parliament, Charles was pragmatic and flexible in his approach. James was far too honest for his own good and believed in letting everyone know about his beliefs

His education had embedded in him two things: a devotion to the memory of his father and an adherence to absolute Catholicism

James developed the belief that Parliament could only be controlled by an authoritarian approach - not that different from his father, or his brother in the later years of his reign

In 1669, James was converted into Catholic faith. As he was heir to the throne of Britain, such a move would be a source of trouble. Charles was in good health for a number of years after this but as his health failed, the Crown, and primarily who would inherit the throne, meant that James was at the centre of a political crisis. Supported by his brother, James was duly named as the true successor when Charles died.

James became king in 1685 In November 1685, he postponed Parliament when it questioned his appointment of Catholic officers into the army and organising the army on the lines of the French

In 1686, James embarked on a programme to persuade Anglican clergy and Tory politicians to join with him in an attempt to persuade Parliament to repeal the Test Act and the Penal Laws

At the same time he used his position to promote Catholics in the army, to high positions at Cambridge and Oxford Universities and within the Civil Service.

In July 1686, James created the Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes – its purpose was to tame the Anglican Church even though Parliament had banned prerogative courts in 1641

To many James seemed to be on a deliberate collision course with Parliament in a manner that resembled the mistakes made by Charles I. Protestants at court were dismissed and this left James with a predominantly Catholic court 

Advised by the Quaker William Penn, who believed that Protestant were a greater danger to the country than Catholics, James decided that the only way ahead for himself was the dissolve Parliament, repeal the Penal Laws, and hold a general election whereby the result would end in a Catholic Parliament that would rubber stamp all that the king wanted. The first stage of this was to issue the 1st Declaration of Indulgence in April 1687, which suspended the Penal Laws. He then dissolved Parliament on July 2nd, 1687.

He used his authority to fill any office going with his own men

also used agents to canvass the people outside of London as to their response to what he was doing

worked on the belief that no one wanted another civil war

Upon the birth of James Edward, James II’s son, the situation became more intense. James now had his heir to the throne who would have been brought up as a Catholic. Many in Parliament also assumed that any child of James Edward would also be brought up as a Catholic and they saw a Catholic monarchy stretching into the future. It was a view that they did not like.

all-party Invitation was sent to William of Orange

The invitation crossed party lines and was symbolic of the fear that politicians of all hue had of the potential for another civil war or the intervention of a European catholic power in support of James

James lost control of the situation reversed many of the policies he had introduced

this only served to make him seem more devious, that he would do anything to maintain his power

William landed and started marching towards London

James sent the queen and the little prince to France beforehand but when he attempted to follow them he was recognised and brought to William, who allowed him to make a second and successful escape to France

made attempts to defeat William The campaign to reclaim his throne was a disaster

James was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne and James had to make a retreat to France

remained in France until he died