Talk:Charles I - Revision history

Pankratz: death of Charles

2009-04-30T15:16:43Z

death of Charles

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 30 April 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:

	"As Charles I became a very popular personality during his reign": no, he did not. Otherwise he probably would not have been executed. He was seen as Royal martyr only after his death.		"As Charles I became a very popular personality during his reign": no, he did not. Otherwise he probably would not have been executed. He was seen as Royal martyr only after his death.

			== death of Charles ==

			"died in 1649 on the gallows": no, he did not. Gallows (=Galgen) implies that he was hanged. His head was cut off on the executioners' block (the Guillotine was invented much later).

Pankratz: Popularity

2009-04-30T15:10:15Z

Popularity

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:10, 30 April 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:
	about the Long Parliament (which in 1640 was not aware that it would exist for 20 years):		about the Long Parliament (which in 1640 was not aware that it would exist for 20 years):
	"their aims were to constrain monarchy in England and to become the only power ruling over England": no. According to the analyses by Christopher Hill, Heiner Haan and others, Parliament did not plan to become the only power and to erect a Republic. They wanted to return to the times of "ancient rights". If your read the parliamentary documents of the early 1640, most Parliamentarians favoured a "mixed government", i.e. King, House of Commons, House of Lords ruling together.		"their aims were to constrain monarchy in England and to become the only power ruling over England": no. According to the analyses by Christopher Hill, Heiner Haan and others, Parliament did not plan to become the only power and to erect a Republic. They wanted to return to the times of "ancient rights". If your read the parliamentary documents of the early 1640, most Parliamentarians favoured a "mixed government", i.e. King, House of Commons, House of Lords ruling together.

			== Popularity ==

			"As Charles I became a very popular personality during his reign": no, he did not. Otherwise he probably would not have been executed. He was seen as Royal martyr only after his death.

Pankratz: Parliaments' plans in 1640

2009-04-30T15:02:55Z

Parliaments' plans in 1640

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 30 April 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	the king did not "invent taxes". Taxes could only be raised by Parliament. Punkt.		the king did not "invent taxes". Taxes could only be raised by Parliament. Punkt.
	He took traditional fees (e.g., ship money or tonnage and poundage) and changed them so that they came close to taxes.		He took traditional fees (e.g., ship money or tonnage and poundage) and changed them so that they came close to taxes.

			== Parliaments' plans in 1640 ==

			about the Long Parliament (which in 1640 was not aware that it would exist for 20 years):
			"their aims were to constrain monarchy in England and to become the only power ruling over England": no. According to the analyses by Christopher Hill, Heiner Haan and others, Parliament did not plan to become the only power and to erect a Republic. They wanted to return to the times of "ancient rights". If your read the parliamentary documents of the early 1640, most Parliamentarians favoured a "mixed government", i.e. King, House of Commons, House of Lords ruling together.

Pankratz: ship money/taxes

2009-04-30T14:56:56Z

ship money/taxes

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 30 April 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:

	[A.P.]		[A.P.]

			== ship money/taxes ==

			"inventing special taxes (e.g. ship money)"
			the king did not "invent taxes". Taxes could only be raised by Parliament. Punkt.
			He took traditional fees (e.g., ship money or tonnage and poundage) and changed them so that they came close to taxes.

Pankratz at 14:45, 30 April 2009

2009-04-30T14:45:16Z

New page

I deleted the passage about belief in "special powers", because it was only half-correct.
Belief in "curing people": this goes back to the Middle Ages. Kings (at first the French monarchs) were believed to cure the "King's evil" (=scrofula, a skin disease) and did so by touching people. This developed into a fixed ritual which almost every monarch did perform. Has nothing to do with the belief in the "divine right of kings" that the Early Stuarts are famous for.
Being "head of state" and "head of church" are traditional prerogatives of a monarch (the "head of church" having been introduced after the separation from Rome.
What, you might ask, what IS the divine right of kings? Keep the suspense, I will talk about it in Session 4.

[A.P.]