Emilia's Glorious Post (LOL)

Round Four (This guy has longer hair than me...should I be concerned?)

Charles II reestablished the English monarchy during the Restoration of 1660, following Cromwell's militant dictatorship in England. Parliament, a political body that was insulted and diminished during Cromwell's reign, wanted to restore parliamentary power.

Although the Restoration did rehabilitate the monarchy in England it failed to deal with two major uncertainties:

What was the relationship between Charles II and Parliament?- Charles wanted to keep the peace between the Crown and Parliament. (Check Caroline's blogpost about the Cabal - this is a major reason why the House of Commons and the King were able to get along). With the restoration of the monarchy, the King and Parliament agreed that Charles would allow for numerous meetings with Parliament and that the House of Commons would offer him substantial incomes - this later faltered.

Looks like Parliament needs a taste of Kanye.

What was England's take on religion and religious tolerance?- Charles II did not necessarily care about doctrinal issues, however, Parliament did. When Parliament failed to give Charles adequate finances, the King was forced to negotiate a secret treaty with Louis XIV that exchanged Charles' conversion to Catholicism for money from France (1670). So, with Charles appearing to favor Catholicism in England, Parliament grew suspicious and wanted to create religious uniformity in England (easier to govern a monotonous people). Parliament was passed the Test Act in 1673, which granted Anglicans social, economic, and political power. These restrictions were difficult to enforce without the King's total support. 

Parliament's feeling salty about their decision to maintain the monarchy.

Why do we go from Catholic James II to Protestant William and Mary?- James II, Charles' brother, threatened England even more because he truly was a fervent Catholic. "A Catholic dynasty seemed ensured" so Parliament took action and threatened/replaced James with William and Mary, the Protestant leaders of England.

Parliament to James II.

Was Charles II a continuation of Charles I?- No, Charles II was different than Charles I, however, Parliament seemed to respond to Charles II the same way they acted against Charles I. Also, Charles II wanted to work with Parliament not against Parliament like Charles I.

The King of Partying has nothing on these moves.

What was more religious: the English Civil War or the Glorious Revolution?- The English Civil War relied heavily on religious differences with the King and Parliament (opinion on religious tolerance, mainly). Whereas, the Glorious Revolution looked past all of that, towards a future without the interjection of religion (no more divine rights of kings, for example).

I think the real question is whether or not the Glorious Revolution was as glorious as Common rapping in the movie Selma.

Was the Glorious Revolution really revolutionary?- No, it was evolutionary. The Glorious Revolution was a time when England stepped towards the future to evolve into something better. It was NOT a democratic revolution.

Nicole-Flo: "Jacque the peasant was not in Parliament, the rich were."

Cory: "Jacque the peasant wasn't in Parliament because he was French..."

Nicole-Flo: "Oh...Jacque was definitely not in Parliament."

Go AP Euro with that stellar comic relief!

Yup, pretty much.

And who am I? That's another secret I'll never tell. You know you love me.

xoxo, Gossip Girl

*Insert my death stare to Mr. Yarnall*