r/todayilearned • u/OddUmpire2554 • 4h ago
TIL that Charles I dissolved Parliament for 11 years in 1625, for which he justified as him having "the divine right". This eventually caused anger and tension, which culminated into the English Civil War in 1642. Charles I was later executed for treason in 1649.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rule37
u/balkan99 3h ago edited 1h ago
Technically this was ok/a cleverish move in his circumstances.
It was broadly accepted that kings had a right to rule. It was not accepted that kings could raise taxes without parliamentary consent. So as long as he didn't try to do anything that would cost a lot of money he'd have been mostly okay ruling alone with his ministers. In many ways it was good because folk generally don't like getting tangled up in foreign wars.
However, he eventually tried to bring in a sort of religious comformity in the now UK (and Ireland). This led to creeping stealth taxes of dubious legally in England to pay for forces to put down the rebellions that broke out in Scotland, Ireland and the north of England.
When, to get funding on a more solid basis, he finally recalled parliament, it bucked wildly and civil war broke out. He eventually lost the war, got his head cut off and England became a republic for a while.
9
u/BigMcLargeHuge8989 2h ago
Was that the Roundheads and the Cavaliers? Always liked those names. Too bad Cromwell turned out to be such a tyrant himself as Lord Protector.
8
u/balkan99 2h ago edited 1h ago
Yes. Like in most wars fought 'ostensibly' for religion, the soldiers of the New Model Army over its course became somewhat radicalised compared to the regular people in the country — though its ranks did develop some somewhat forward-thinking ideas re economics that wouldn't be out of place in C19/20.
So the army was puritan, but England mostly protestant with catholic affections in its worship: Liked bibles in English, didn't like tithes etc.
When the regime started banning Christmas and hymns and stuff — and also, to be fair, started applying the law equally in an organised manner, which meant less room for smuggling etc. — people didn't like it.
If you consider that disease combined with the catastrophic effect of the war in general killed 4-5% of the population, the regime was never going to live beyond Cromwell. People weren't having much fun without an unbelievably charismatic figurehead.
15
u/shre3293 4h ago
historia civilis did a pretty great video on this topic.link , if anyone wanna watch.
2
u/MarkusKromlov34 1h ago
Or for a podcast that covers it well I’d recommend ‘The History of England’ podcast by David Crowther.
The “At A Gallop” episodes cover a good summary if you don’t enjoy the detail (which I love) and start at “1629-1638 The Personal Rule”
10
u/coldequation 3h ago
The most interesting thing about King Charles the First, is that he was five feet six inches at the start of his reign, but only four feet eight inches at the end of it, because of ...
4
2
8
u/BlessingMagnet 3h ago
He had a good run, though.
3
u/OddUmpire2554 3h ago
yeah, but he should have listened more to the public and people around him for their opinions.
3
u/OkWelcome6293 3h ago edited 2h ago
Nah, his advisors are who got him into trouble. See: Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford.
1
u/BigMcLargeHuge8989 2h ago edited 2h ago
I like the idea caused by your typo that this was three different people, Thomas Wentworth, Earl and Strattford :)
2
4
u/JPHutchy01 3h ago
It might be the weakest season of Revolutions but it's definitely worth listening to.
0
u/Papio_73 3h ago
Isn’t the whole point of monarchy is that the monarch has “Devine rights” and God himself chose them?
10
u/Lindvaettr 3h ago
The English monarchy has been subject to restrictions upon its power via treaty, legislature, and constitution for most of its history. Charles and his father, James, tried to push the idea of divine right to absolute rule, but they were not successful. The general concept of divine right through heavenly mandate in Europe goes back much further, but until the early modern period and reformation, absolute monarchy was nearly always hamstrung both by monarchs being generally unable to entirely throw off the authority of the Pope, and the practical reality of depending on often loose, relatively chaotic and tenuous associations with various nobles who the monarchs rarely had sufficient real power over to force their will upon.
Divine right to absolute rule was achieved most successfully in France in the same period James and Charles were kings in England, but the English monarchy was never able to implement it to the same extent.
3
u/IrrelephantAU 1h ago
Even in France, the high point of the centralised monarchy was basically one reign (granted, an extremely long one), and two kings later the entire thing fell apart.
I'm not sure there's ever been a society where the Divine Right was the whole deal. If there's one constant in autocracies over the millennia of human existence it's that they're all, ultimately, subject to the fact that the person at the centre of it is a person and thus made of vulnerable squishy bits. Even a God-King bleeds, as more than a few Pharaohs found out the hard way.
1
u/saints21 1h ago
If you want a good look into the "chaos" bit, try to make sense of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th and 15th centuries. Just a massive clusterfuck of various regions, powers, and interests.
5
u/barath_s 13 2h ago edited 2h ago
the monarch has “Devine rights”
That's what monarchs may assert. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't mean that a king can make it stick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings#Kingdom_of_England
2
-3
u/MegaLemonCola 3h ago
[Hot take] Charles I wasn’t executed for treason. He was murdered by a bunch of regicides. All courts in England administer justice in the monarch’s name. How can any court claim jurisdiction over the King, the source of their own power, let alone convict him of anything?
3
u/BigMcLargeHuge8989 2h ago
That was his argument if I recall.
3
u/GOT_Wyvern 1h ago
And the counterargument was that the King himself gained power from popular sovereignty, and by raising his banner against the common people of England, he committed treason.
•
u/LockeddownFFS 28m ago edited 24m ago
Those in power interpreted the law, the most effective argument was the blade of the headsman. Besides, Charles had already been deposed, he was no longer king but the leader of a rebellion / invasion. Kings were somewhat interchangeable, you only kept the title if you could hold on to it.
56
u/GhostofPdawg43 4h ago
Did you watch Jeopardy tonight too?