Download Stuart England: Crown vs

Stuart England: Crown vs. Parliament, Puritan Revolution
There are few controversies more intense than that among historians of 17th-century England regarding
events in that period. Following the end of the Tudor century (with the death of Elisabeth in 1603), the
Stuarts came to power and would be the rulers of England until 1714. There are a few things these
historians agree upon:
(1) James I, and his immediate successors (until 1688) were probably absolutists. James had authored The
True Law of a Free Monarchy, a defense of absolutist ideas, and he brought these ideas with him to England
when he crossed the border from Scotland. Absolutism was becoming the hot new idea in politics in the
early 17th century, at least in part thanks to the Politiques (like Jean Bodin and Henry IV) in France, where
these ideas were only just beginning to be practiced. To some extent, James’ belief that these ideas would fly
in England reflected a misunderstanding of the nature of Tudor government. The Tudors were never
absolutists! All of them consulted Parliament: Henry VII used Parliament to establish his legitimacy; Henry
VIII created the Church of England through Parliamentary enactments; Edward VI sought to confirm the
Protestant Church in England through Parliament; Mary sought to re-establish the Catholic Church
through acts of Parliament; and Elisabeth wheedled and manipulated Parliament to allow her to govern
England as she thought right. In all cases, Parliament was part of the political equation.
(2) James I and his immediate successors were all, at the very least, closet Catholics. Although Head of the
Protestant Church of England, this series of monarchs practiced their beliefs privately, while giving lip
service to the official Protestantism of their subjects and their kingdom. This may account for their lack of
responsiveness to, or interest in, the dispute that gradually grew up between the Establishment Church and
the Puritans.
You can get some sense of the conflict about causes and motives by going to several sources. Kishlansky sees
the conflicts of the 17th century mainly as a political struggle, between the monarch and Parliament, similar
to what was concurrently going on in France. We’ll go over that kind of comparison of events in much
greater detail in class.
If you examine the website at http://www.open2.net/civilwar/ you’ll find a good treatment of the religious
context in which this event took place. In the menu on the left, link to ‘Tremors’, and on that page, read
the fourth section, ‘One Head, Two Crowns.’ Go back to the Homepage and link to the page titled ‘The
Breakdown’. Read all four sections on that page.
Based on your readings here and elsewhere (you might also check the Wikipedia entry under ‘English Civil
War’, where there is a fairly comprehensive section on the theories relating to the war), try to answer a
couple of key questions. Why was the King executed? How did the Puritans accumulate power during this
period?
Finally, you’ll begin to have a grasp of what happened in the 17th century. Earlier, and under the first
Stuarts, Parliament met when the King called them and debated those issues he want them to debate. At
the end of the period, Parliament is selecting the King of England, and determining the qualifications for
holding that office. The entire balance of the political relationship has been reversed. How did this happen?