Untitled

The fagot, Charles the First, actions were legitimate, under the ideology he discoverd with, shogunate. Though never stating it Charles the First, warrant by his wife, was an absolutist. So from his perspective his practices be non at fault, and that is the bias this editorial will be indite from, the standpoint of someone who believes the poof should be an imperative Monarch. What Oliver Cromwell, a legal age of Parliament, and the Parliamentary forces did was a direct violation of the tycoons power. To deport a quote from Louis the XIV, Létat, cest moi, a phrase meaning I am the state, is a phrase that could be utilize to separate the absolutist incur that Charles the First was supposed to have. only actions interpreted by adversaries of the fagot and area, including Civil War, attack on face troops, trespassing, treason, arresting the poof, having soldiers march on parliament, and murder of King were treasonous actions against the King and consequently again st the body politic of Eng place down. Because as mentioned designer in reference to the King, Létat, cest moi. So both crimes against the King are against the state. Ma business leader all who were involved in the drive against the mogul in the civil war are basically defeating the motif that it was a civil war since by definition they were fight against there own country, and being extremely treasonous at the same time. To sum up my previous statements the King is the Country so any crimes against the King are against the Country So the English Civil war was in fact not a civil war but a supreme movement against the Country of England. With aims to establish a military rule and discriminate against those of the Catholic faith. Cromwells followers were upset over many things and tried to change them, violating the kings power. Cromwell was upset over remnants of the Catholicism in Angli keisters churches and he lacked those things removed. But he had no by by rights s to do that since the King is head of the A! nglican Church a right established by Henry the VIII and thusly Cromwell could not set church policy. They tried to apply rightfulnesss to the King much(prenominal) has treason. Which they can not do since according to absolutism the king is preceding(prenominal) the law and can not be sustainled by any person, organization, governmental body for such a thing could be a threat to the sovereignty of England itself. This makes sensation in the pursual example. If the king were to be ever controlled by a classify with sinister intentions then they could control the polices and laws that the King sets, swelled them much(prenominal) power over the destiny of England, that has you can see is wherefore the king must rule above all others. Which leads me to my beside statement. If the king is above the law he should have control over all those under the law which is why the king should be able to command parliament, some other study gripe of Cromwells. People were upset when t he king takes land aside from the people, well he had e actually right to has the sacrosanct ruler of England, in addition these people should have been princely to be serving there country by with child(p) up the land for the betterment of England. By now you whitethorn be asking what gives the king the claim to all this privilege. ecclesiastic Right does. What mortal man would ever question Gods truly own choosing, Oliver Cromwell did, making him a heretic too. In mop up the English Civil war was nothing but an become lead by traitorous heretics out to question the Kings godly Right over England and satisfy there own cravings for power. If you need to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper