Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 8th, 2012, 06:21 AM   #11
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
Not really, it was just begining of the age of absolutism in Europe
England had weak kings dependent on the aristocracy in the middle ages and parliment determined the succesion in Anglo-Saxon times. Absolute monarchy was a new approach.

Charles I had a Catholic wife and appointed high church bishops. He tried to force Scottish Calvinists to follow close to the Anglican approach with a hierarchical church structure and use of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, which was close to a translation of the mass.

He tried to govern without parliment for several years. His high church and absolutist views helped lead to a conflict. If he had not tried to pursue this adjenda, he probably would have died of natural causes.
betgo is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:26 AM   #12

OccamsRazor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: London, just like the Queen
Posts: 724

So based on the previous posts, we have the following list (in no particular order) as an answer to the OP -

His attempt to rule without Parliament for many years.
His misuse of money.
He had a Catholic wife.
He had bad advisors.
He appointed High Church clergy in an age of increasing puritanism.
He tried to force Scottish Calvinists to observe Anglican church practices.
He wanted to restore power back to the throne.
Insecurity.
Arrogance.
His inability to gauge public mood and attitudes.

So the answer to the question 'Why did Charles I have so many problems?' must be 'Because of Charles I'.
OccamsRazor is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 04:59 PM   #13
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 620

He Charles- was born in Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland in 1600.Fifers have a reputation even today in Scotland, , for being thrawn and awkward (''thrawn''=Scottish word for being awkward and pig headed).
Seriously, though, he inherited his father James VI of Scotland and 1st of England's belief in the Divine Rights of Kings and had no ability to understand or tolerate Parliamentary constraints on his royal powers.
Like his father James VI/IST he loathed the Presbyterian form of Protestantism that was the chosen faith of the majority of his Scottish subjects.
Consequently, he ailenated his fellow Scots by trying to impose the alien concept of Episcopalianism on them.
He was vain and not too bright and his weakness for duplicity cost him his head at Whitehall, London, in 1649.
Of his imperious father James VI/1st the French diplomat Sully called James ''The Wisest Fool in Christendom'' -that applied with equal truth to Charles Ist.
Toomtabard is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:02 PM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,537

The result of his taking an absolutist and high church or Catholic approach was the exact opposite. Parlimentary Puritan government after he lost the civil war. Long term, partly in reaction to his son James II, a very limited monarchy and the requirement that the monarch be protestant and marry a protestant.
betgo is online now  
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:17 PM   #15

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,107
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by OccamsRazor View Post
So based on the previous posts, we have the following list (in no particular order) as an answer to the OP -

His attempt to rule without Parliament for many years.
His misuse of money.
He had a Catholic wife.
He had bad advisors.
He appointed High Church clergy in an age of increasing puritanism.
He tried to force Scottish Calvinists to observe Anglican church practices.
He wanted to restore power back to the throne.
Insecurity.
Arrogance.
His inability to gauge public mood and attitudes.

So the answer to the question 'Why did Charles I have so many problems?' must be 'Because of Charles I'.
Yeah, it adds up to him simply lacking wisdom.
Jake10 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 07:44 PM   #16
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
Not really, it was just begining of the age of absolutism in Europe
Most certainly not, it was approaching an end
the enlightenment of the 18th century was approaching and the stage was set.
Waxhax is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 04:06 AM   #17
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: N. Ireland
Posts: 206

Absolutism was dead and buried in ENGLAND.

The continent was someway behind - even with the enlightenment, the 'Great Kings' held sway for another hundred years in France, and much longer as you went farther eastward.

Charles was a traditional 'Royal' personage, in a world where such were no longer tolerated by the rapidly growing English middle classes.
Giraffe is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 11:26 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,537

There never was absolute rule in England. You have to remember that in medieval times nobles had a lot of power, and in some countries there were also elected parliments are whatever, so kings were far from absolute rulers.

Charles I tried to copy the absolute rule at the time in France Russia and elsewhere.

He didn't understand that a king is in some ways like an elected leader and has to appeal to consituencies and follow policies acceptable to the people and the elite. Charles tried to be an absolute ruler and followed unpopular policies.
betgo is online now  
Old November 9th, 2012, 11:52 AM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giraffe View Post
Absolutism was dead and buried in ENGLAND.

The continent was someway behind - even with the enlightenment, the 'Great Kings' held sway for another hundred years in France, and much longer as you went farther eastward.

Charles was a traditional 'Royal' personage, in a world where such were no longer tolerated by the rapidly growing English middle classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
There never was absolute rule in England. You have to remember that in medieval times nobles had a lot of power, and in some countries there were also elected parliments are whatever, so kings were far from absolute rulers.

Charles I tried to copy the absolute rule at the time in France Russia and elsewhere.

He didn't understand that a king is in some ways like an elected leader and has to appeal to consituencies and follow policies acceptable to the people and the elite. Charles tried to be an absolute ruler and followed unpopular policies.
Must fundamentally agree; Absolutism may have been fashionable in the Continent and even to this day in some other places all around this Planet, but IMHO certainly not in England (or Britain as a whole)
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 12:09 PM   #20

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 10,038
Blog Entries: 11

Basically because he was not at all good at dealing with people, or choosing people to delegate to. He was weak, stubborn, and had a high sense of his own importance; and he was not at all good at winning people over, or finding common ground with them, or reconciling them to things that they instinctively disliked. He alienated people, and that really mattered, because he was trying to impose things that went against the grain for a substantial number of the people who mattered, both with regard to the nature of his rule, and to his religious reforms. He had many good qualities, he was cultivated and dignified, had excellent taste in artistic matters, and was a good family man; personally I find his form of religion, with the respect that it showed for beauty, far more appealing than the narrow puritanism of so many of his opponents, but that was one of the main reasons why many people turned against him (especially because Archbishop Laud, whom he chose to head his reforms, was himself notably tactless). His son Charles II, who was a more vulgar character in almost every way, possessed all the gifts that his father lacked in dealing with people and negotiating his way through political difficulties, and consequently fared much better. Charles II realized, of course, that it was no longer possible for a king to force his way in England in the way that a Tudor thug might have been able to do. If there had been any possibility at all of doing that, it would have taken a much more ruthless and much more capable man than Charles I (who somehow reminds me of the last Russian Tsar).

Last edited by Linschoten; November 9th, 2012 at 12:20 PM.
Linschoten is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
charles, problems


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problems with Ferdinand PolishK European History 2 December 18th, 2011 07:16 AM
Social Problems Scourge History Help 6 October 14th, 2009 12:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.