James and divine rights.

Question 1

What was the theory of the Divine Right of Kings?

Answer 1

This was a theory that stated kings were appointed by God and were thus only answerable to God, as opposed to any authority on Earth.

Question 2

How did James I interpret the Divine Right of Kings?

Answer 2

James felt as though he could interpret the law and was not accountable to Parliament. However, he still felt that he had to follow the laws that he interpreted and could not act irresponsibly.

Question 3

How did James intend to rule?

Answer 3

Unlike the absolutist Kings or more democratic system in Scotland, James felt that the English parliament was too powerful to disregard, so he could not be an absolutist, however he hated how the Scots believed the people could control who the King was as he believed he was chosen by God, not them.

Question 4

Did James ever document these views?

Answer 4

In the Trew Law of Free Monarchies and the Baskillion Doron, James asserted that kings were above the law, but should rule within the law to avoid tyranny, which was mutually beneficial.

Question 5

What issues did James beliefs create with parl? How did these create tension?

Answer 5

James insisted on his prerogative rights being respected (matters that only a king could decide on - usually foreign policy.) His believes in his prerogative in the early years led to three major disagreements with parliament. These were;

• The rights to be arbiter over disputed elections to the House of Commons.
  -The rights to purveyance, which was the rights to purchase provisions for the royal household for cut prices.
• The rights to wardships, where the crown could take the land owned or left to people under 21 and profit off said land until the Heir was 21.

James was willing to acknowledge the House of Commons as the body that decided disputed elections, but he was less willing to negotiate on his other demands, these created minor rifts between James and Parliament but created tension nonetheless.