The Charles’s of England
England is now on its third Charles...
When Charles I took the throne, England had been undergoing a religious power struggle. The year was 1625. Some 75 years after Henry VIII declared himself head of his own church and broke away from the Catholic Church, the struggle between religious freedom, control and dominance played out in the rulers of England. Charles I, who was decidedly pro-Catholic and was what we refer to as an “absolute monarch,” got into it with Parliament multiple times and was heavy handed. While he was at the reins, the English Civil War broke out. In the meantime, Englishmen had been fleeing the countryside and heading to places that were more tolerant of the then illegal brands of worship and religious beliefs: the Pilgrims were part of this group and would, of course, end up in the New World starting a fledgling colony. But, to be sure, when England entered its period of the Commonwealth, and Charles I was executed, the resulting decade until there was again a monarchy accomplished something else: it left the New World English Colonies to their own devices. During that time, they grew autonomous.
When Charles II restored the monarchy (after Oliver Cromwell died), he re-established the Church of England and tried to impart a little religious freedom, but he fought Parliament over all sorts of issues and eventually dissolved it. By the time England got back on track about 1688, things in the colonies were already in motion and their basic character set: by the turn of the 18th century most of the colonies had been functioning on their own and would not take kindly to being told what to do. England had been largely distracted by their internal strife and in many ways ignored their brethren overseas. When King George III needed the colonies’ revenue to pay for the French and Indian War 60 years later, the colonies decided they were better off on their own. Hence, the American Revolution.
So, what of Charles III? Well, I watched the coronation and found the process interesting. Coronations of the Crown have their own unique histories, but I don’t think this one will result in anything so abrupt as the dissolution of Parliament, an edict about religious freedom, or anything drastic. The monarchy these days is not the same as those of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Indeed, the British Crown is largely a diplomatic and representational role these days as they have a constitutional monarchy. The King or Queen does get to appoint the Prime Minister, though, and has some input on laws which are to be passed. Charles III now has the distinction of being the oldest monarch in England to begin his rule.
But, more importantly, Americans have enjoyed a long-standing alliance with our cousins across the pond. And, I don’t see Charles III doing anything to change that.
Have a good week folks!
