Help
wat do u tink of James I as a king, relative to his predecessors and successors?
wat extent do u tink tat he influenced his son charles I?
Page 1 of 1
James I Opinion
MultiQuote#2 Guest_blixxard_*
Posted 04 December 2004 - 01:06 AM
I am posting this at 1am off the top of my head apologies for short reply.
They say that Elizabeth had been a King and now came James the Queen.
James I inherited a near to empty treasury and religious factions wanting to influences James in some way. Such as Catholics hoped the recusancy laws would be relaxed. How wrong they proved to be. 1605 Gunpowder Plot. Puritans wanted to see a full reform of the English church to expel evil Catholicism once and for all.
There were a few radical changes during James reign. Such as Parliament openly discussing foreign policy during the later years and the outbreak of the 30 years war. James was above all a peaceful man and there was no war during his reign. (1624 he is senile and dieing on his deathbed – Charles begins to peruse war with Spain.)
There is a clash between James I view of his divine right to rule with his prerogative powers and that after Mary I an English monarch rules with the will of the people.
The only way James was going to raise sufficient funds for his extravagance was through Parliament. Each time Parliament meet they wished James to address their grievances. James was a stronger Monarch when dealing with Parliament than Charles as James previously ruled Scotland dealing with the Scottish nobility.
Charles has never been meant to be King. He was not a strong character as James had been. The final few years of James’ reign had seen growing support for Puritan MP’s. This would later become a problem due to Charles link to his wife Henrietta Maria. A Catholic.
When judging James in relation to his successor I would say he was pretty successful, there was no civil war. Comparing him to his predecessor Liz, she accomplished more but left problems for James. In turn James left Charles with problems.
Sleep now.
They say that Elizabeth had been a King and now came James the Queen.
James I inherited a near to empty treasury and religious factions wanting to influences James in some way. Such as Catholics hoped the recusancy laws would be relaxed. How wrong they proved to be. 1605 Gunpowder Plot. Puritans wanted to see a full reform of the English church to expel evil Catholicism once and for all.
There were a few radical changes during James reign. Such as Parliament openly discussing foreign policy during the later years and the outbreak of the 30 years war. James was above all a peaceful man and there was no war during his reign. (1624 he is senile and dieing on his deathbed – Charles begins to peruse war with Spain.)
There is a clash between James I view of his divine right to rule with his prerogative powers and that after Mary I an English monarch rules with the will of the people.
The only way James was going to raise sufficient funds for his extravagance was through Parliament. Each time Parliament meet they wished James to address their grievances. James was a stronger Monarch when dealing with Parliament than Charles as James previously ruled Scotland dealing with the Scottish nobility.
Charles has never been meant to be King. He was not a strong character as James had been. The final few years of James’ reign had seen growing support for Puritan MP’s. This would later become a problem due to Charles link to his wife Henrietta Maria. A Catholic.
When judging James in relation to his successor I would say he was pretty successful, there was no civil war. Comparing him to his predecessor Liz, she accomplished more but left problems for James. In turn James left Charles with problems.
Sleep now.
This post has been edited by blixxard: 04 December 2004 - 01:20 AM
#3
- Group: Student
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 03-December 04
Posted 07 December 2004 - 07:06 PM
thanks for your reply, i hadnt come across the quote of Elizabeth bein the king and James being the queen, i found it quite interesting.
Personally i feel that James made a good effort at a difficult job, throughout his reign he swayed between different groups, changing his policies to change please different groups. it seemed to work pretty well.
Charles on the other hand i feel made a mess, he was too caught up in the divine right of kings and his own prerogative. he shud have taken a leaf out of his fathers book.for a unconfident shy guy he caused quite a stir.
thanks again.
Personally i feel that James made a good effort at a difficult job, throughout his reign he swayed between different groups, changing his policies to change please different groups. it seemed to work pretty well.
Charles on the other hand i feel made a mess, he was too caught up in the divine right of kings and his own prerogative. he shud have taken a leaf out of his fathers book.for a unconfident shy guy he caused quite a stir.
thanks again.
#4 Guest_blixxard_*
Posted 08 December 2004 - 03:29 PM
intel, on Dec 7 2004, 07:06 PM, said:
thanks for your reply, i hadnt come across the quote of Elizabeth bein the king and James being the queen, i found it quite interesting.
Personally i feel that James made a good effort at a difficult job, throughout his reign he swayed between different groups, changing his policies to change please different groups. it seemed to work pretty well.
Charles on the other hand i feel made a mess, he was too caught up in the divine right of kings and his own prerogative. he shud have taken a leaf out of his fathers book.for a unconfident shy guy he caused quite a stir.
thanks again.
Personally i feel that James made a good effort at a difficult job, throughout his reign he swayed between different groups, changing his policies to change please different groups. it seemed to work pretty well.
Charles on the other hand i feel made a mess, he was too caught up in the divine right of kings and his own prerogative. he shud have taken a leaf out of his fathers book.for a unconfident shy guy he caused quite a stir.
thanks again.
hehe. The quote was from the UK History TV program King and Queens of England. The phrase was said in Latin ofc.
I would agree, James was a stronger person able to take the burdens of Parliament. Charles however had a stutter, one leg londer than the other, small, and did not have a monarchs eduction.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1