James I and Divine Right
- Created by: Lizz2002
- Created on: 28-09-20 13:29
View mindmap
- James I and Divine Right
- Divine Right of Kings: the belief that the king is appointed by God and, therefore, can only be held accountable by God
- James interpreted this as he was responsible for interpreting the law, and was not under the control of parliament
- However, he could not rule in the way he wanted
- Parliament had too many powers to allow this
- James interpreted this as he was responsible for interpreting the law, and was not under the control of parliament
- How James expressed his views:
- Wrote "The Trew Law of Free Memories" and "Basilikon" while he was only King of Scotland
- Said the King was above the law, but should work within it - there is a clear difference between a king and a tyrant
- Once he became King of England, he expressed similar sentiments during speeches to Parlaiament
- Problems caused by James' belief
- Parliament was suspicious that James wanted to be an absolute monarch
- However, James stayed within the laws, but did insist on his prerogative rights
- Right to adjudicate disputed elections
- Right to purveyance (royal discount)
- Right to wardships (profiting from estates with underaged heirs)
- However, James stayed within the laws, but did insist on his prerogative rights
- Outcomes of dispute over prerogative rights:
- The right to adjudicate disputed elections was resolved - House of Commons now had that right
- Wardship and purveyance was not solved - James was determined to keep these rights
- This caused anxiety in parliament
- Wrote "A form of Apology and Satisfaction" to express this
- This caused anxiety in parliament
- Parliament was suspicious that James wanted to be an absolute monarch
- Divine Right of Kings: the belief that the king is appointed by God and, therefore, can only be held accountable by God
Comments
No comments have yet been made