Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin, and I'll be your history teacher for today.

I'm really looking forward to starting our learning journey together, and my role will be to make sure that you can meet today's learning objective.

Welcome to today's history lesson, where we are going to be working on explaining how Charles I angered Parliament, which was the main cause of the English Civil War.

This is part of our unit on the English Civil War, where we are going to be thinking about how pamphlets can help us to understand politics in the 17th century.

So today's lesson is really a foundational one, bringing us to the start of the English Civil War and understanding its origins.

There are five key words which are gonna help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are divine, Parliament, remonstrance, pamphlet and papist.

If something is divine, it is connected to God.

Parliament is made up of politicians who vote on laws and taxes.

A remonstrance is a very critical protest.

Pamphlets are small booklets offering information or arguments about a specific topic.

And papist was an insulting word used to refer to Catholics in the 17th century.

So today's lesson on the causes of the English Civil War is gonna be broken down into three parts.

And we're going to begin by thinking about something called the divine right of Kings.

Charles I was King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1625 until 1649.

Charles was taught as a child to believe in something called the divine right of kings.

His father, King James I, was the man who had taught his son to believe in this divine right.

The divine writer of kings was an idea about monarchy.

Monarchs were chosen by God, according to the divine right of kings.

This meant that monarchs only had to answer to God.

Subjects, the people who were ruled over by a monarch, had the duty to obey their monarch.

They had to listen to what their king or queen told them to do and follow those orders.

Subjects could not remove a monarch for ruling badly.

According to the divine right of kings, subjects also could not restrict a monarch's powers.

So these were some of the key ideas which made up that collective concept of the divine right of kings, which Charles I believed in.

So now that we've heard about what the divine right of kings was, let's just check our knowledge to make sure we really understand it.

I have a question for you.

Who chose the monarch, according to the divine right of kings? Was it the Archbishop of Canterbury, God or the Speaker of Parliament? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to hear the correct answer.

Okay, really well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B.

According to the divine right of kings, every monarch was chosen by God.

This is where the word divine comes from in that name.

And let's try a second question.

I want you to decide whether each of the statements on the screen about the divine right of kings is true or false.

If a statement is true, then you should give it a tick.

And if you think it's false, then you should give it a cross.

So our three statements are that monarchs should respect the wishes of their subjects, that monarchs' powers could not be restricted by their subjects, and that subjects had the right to remove a monarch who mis-ruled terribly, basically who didn't respect their subjects or who was a bad leader.

So remember, you need to decide whether each of those statements is actually part of the divine right of kings or not.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answers.

Okay, lots for us to think about on that task, so really well done for all of your efforts.

To check our answers, you should have said that the first statement, A, was false.

The divine right of Kings did not say that monarchs should respect the wishes of their subjects.

It said that they only had to answer to God, so they didn't need to think about how their subjects felt.

You should have said that statement B was true, monarchs' powers could not be restricted by their subjects.

Again, this is because they only had to answer to God.

It wouldn't be right for ordinary people to interfere with someone that God had given power to.

And our third statement, C, you should have said that that was false.

It said that subjects had the right to remove a monarch who mis-rule terribly.

But actually the divine right of King said, again, because the monarch was given their power by God, subjects should not interfere with that.

They definitely should not try and remove a monarch from power because that would almost be like challenging God.

Monarchs did not see Parliament as an equal in the 17th century.

Monarchs expected Parliament to approve new taxes and new laws that they wanted for the country.

Monarchs could, and frequently did, dissolve Parliaments they did not like.

This means that they simply dismissed them, and instead of ruling with Parliament, had periods of time where they ruled without, when it was only the monarch leading the country.

Again, let's just check our understanding of this new knowledge we've taken on.

So how did monarchs view their relationship with Parliament? Did they think Parliament was as powerful as the monarch? Did they think Parliament was less powerful than the monarch? Or did they think that Parliament was more powerful than the monarch? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, really well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B, monarchs in the 17th century thought that Parliament was less powerful than the monarch.

They did not treat it as an equal.

So now we are ready to put our newfound knowledge about the divine right of kings into practise.

I want you to complete the following sentence and then add another sentence to develop your explanation with some more detail.

The sentence reads, "English Parliaments may have disliked the idea "of the divine right of kings because." So remember, you need to complete that sentence and then write another which offers some more explanation.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, really well done for your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to complete the following sentence that read, "English Parliament may have disliked the idea "of the divine right of kings because." So you may have written they disliked it because it encouraged monarchs to treat Parliament as less powerful.

Monarchs expected Parliaments to approve new taxes and laws, but often dissolved them, remember, that means to get rid of, to dismiss Parliament, if Parliament acted in ways the monarch disliked.

So really well done for your hard work on that task.

We are now ready to move on to the second part of our lesson today, where we are gonna think about Parliament and Charles I.

Charles I had a very difficult relationship with Parliament.

In fact, by 1642, the relationship between King Charles and his English Parliament had become so bad that a civil war began in England.

Now, there were three key types of issues that pushed Parliament to oppose Charles I, and that ultimately led the king and his Parliament to go to war.

Those types of issues were religious issues, political issues and financial issues.

To be really clear, when we talk about religious issues, we're talking about disagreements over people's faith and their beliefs.

When we talk about political issues, we're talking about disagreements based on how much power different groups of people had or how they used that power.

And when we're talking about financial disagreements, financial issues, we're talking about areas where Parliament was becoming angry over money.

Now that we understand what the three key types of issues were that led to disagreements between Parliament and King Charles I, we are gonna check our understanding and make sure we can classify some examples.

I want you to read this example of a problem Parliament had with Charles I.

The problem was that Charles ruled without Parliament for 11 years, this became known as the King's personal rule.

So what type of issue is this? Is it a religious issue, a political issue, or a financial issue? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to hear the correct answer.

Okay, really well done to everybody who said this would be an example of a political issue.

In the case of Charles I's personal rule, Parliament was unhappy about the way the King was using his power and taking power away from them if he ruled by himself.

So that's a political issue.

Let's look at another example of a problem that Parliament had with King Charles.

Parliament disliked Charles I's church reforms, which they said had restored some Catholic practises in England.

So would this be an example of a religious issue, a political issue or a financial issue? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to hear the correct answer.

Okay, really well done to everybody who said this is an example of a religious issue leading to disagreements between Parliament and the King because in this case, Parliament was really concerned about the King's approach to people's faith.

So now that we've checked our understanding and we've made sure we can classify examples of the problems Parliament had with the king, we're gonna put our knowledge into practise on a bigger scale.

I want you to study the examples of Parliament's issues with Charles I.

You can see these issues in the table on the screen, and I want you to identify what type of issue, political, religious or financial, each example represents.

So pause the video here and press play when you are ready to see the correct answers.

Okay, lots of hard work on that task.

Really great to see.

So thinking about the correct answers for each of these examples.

The one that tells us Charles I ruled without Parliament for 11 years.

Well, that is a political issue that Parliament had with the King.

The fact that Charles I married a Catholic queen, Henrietta Maria, that was a religious issue.

Parliament was concerned about the faith, the beliefs of the new queen.

Charles increasing taxes such as Ship Money.

Well, taxes are all about money people have to pay to the government.

So that's an example of a financial issue.

Charles I's church reforms, which reintroduced some Catholic practises, is another example of a religious issue between Parliament and the king.

And the fact that Charles would not remove unpopular advisors such as Archbishop Laud and the Earl of Strafford is an example of a political issue because it shows that the king was not listening to others.

He was only using his power to rule in his own interests.

And now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today, where we are gonna focus on something called the Grand Remonstrance.

So before we talk about the Grand Remonstrance itself, it's important for us to understand the context that it emerged in.

Between 1640 and 1660, many pamphlets were published in England.

These pamphlets discussed and debated leading public issues at the time.

In 1641, Parliament wrote the Grand Remonstrance.

This was a list of the many issues Parliament had with how England had been run since the beginning of Charles I's reign, amounting to 204 complaints in total.

These included political, religious and financial issues.

The Grand Remonstrance made it clear that Parliament was very worried about the king and his advisors using their power in a cruel and unfair way.

And also about the risk of Protestantism in England, the main religion of the country, being threatened.

The Remonstrance also included requests for reforms, changes which Parliament hoped the king would make.

For example, in the Remonstrance, Parliament asked Charles to only employ advisors, ambassadors and other leading ministers to help who Parliament approves of.

Without this, we cannot supply as much money from new taxation as his majesty hopes for.

Parliament has good reason to oppose some men advising the king.

Some are known favours of papists or have spoken disrespectfully about Parliament.

Because of all this and more, we have great reason to tell his majesty not to trust such men to help him rule.

So let's just check our initial understanding of the Grand Remonstrance.

First, I want you to write the missing word.

"In the Grand Remonstrance, "Parliament asked Charles I to give them greater control "over the King's choice of," what? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, really well done to everybody who wrote advisors.

So in the Grand Remonstrance, one of the things Parliament complained about, one of its 204 complaints was that the king was appointing men who he shouldn't have been trusting, men who either were disrespectful to Parliament or actually were supposedly papists, Catholics.

So Parliament asked for more control over the king's choice of advisors.

Now let's try another question, one that's a little bit different.

I want you to identify a quotation from the Grand Remonstrance which shows that Parliament was worried about religion.

A quote from the Grand Remonstrance is now visible on your screen, and that quote runs along eight lines.

To identify your quotation, you might just write the line or lines that the quote can be found on.

So just to remind you, you are identifying a quote from the Grand Remonstrance that shows Parliament was worried about religion.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, really well done on that task.

Always so difficult when we are thinking about finding quotes from sources to back up certain points.

If we wanted to show that Parliament was worried about religion from the Grand Remonstrance, you may have picked the quote which can be read on lines four and five that says, "Parliament has good reason "to oppose some men advising the king.

"Some are known favorers of papists." This shows Parliament was worried about religion because we know papist was an insulting word used to describe Catholics.

So Parliament was saying they were worried about some Catholics being given power by the king.

Parliament submitted the Grand Remonstrance to Charles I at the beginning of December, 1641.

However, the king did not immediately respond to Parliament's complaints.

Parliament ordered the Grand Remonstrance to be published as a pamphlet for the public to read.

This was in response to the king's ignoring of their complaints.

Parliament hoped that sharing the Remonstrance with the public would help create more support for their complaints and requests for reforms. It was hoped that this public pressure would force the king to consider Parliament's complaints and recommendations more seriously.

After the Grand Remonstrance was published as a pamphlet, the king did finally respond.

However, Charles I claims that he did not think it was necessary for any of his ministers, his advisors, to be removed from office.

And he also rejected Parliament's fears about the threat of Catholicism to Protestantism in England and the need for other reforms. So let's just check our understanding of this newfound knowledge about the Grand Remonstrance.

First, why did Parliament publish the Grand Remonstrance as a pamphlet? Was this to encourage people to fight against the king, to gain public attention and put more pressure on the king, or was it to make sure the king saw their complaints and requests? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B, Parliament published the Grand Remonstrance as a pamphlet to gain public attention and put more pressure on the king.

This was because the king had previously been ignoring the Grand Remonstrance.

So they hoped that as a pamphlet with many people reading it, the king wouldn't have any choice but to respond.

So now it's time to put our knowledge about the Grand Remonstrance into practise.

I want you to explain two ways the Grand Remonstrance shows historians that Parliament wanted King Charles I to make reforms, that means changes.

Your answer should include at least one quotation from the Grand Remonstrance itself.

So pause the video here and press play when you are ready to check your response.

Okay, well done for all your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to explain two ways that the Grand Remonstrance shows historians that Parliament wanted King Charles to make reforms. You may have considered the following in your answer, that the Grand Remonstrance shows that Parliament wanted King Charles to change some of his leading advisors.

For example, the Grand Remonstrance asked the king to only employ advisors, ambassadors and other leading ministers to help who Parliament approves of.

You may also have considered that the Grand Remonstrance shows that Parliament wanted King Charles to listen to their complaints and consider their recommendations.

For example, when Charles failed to reply to the Remonstrance quickly, Parliament published it as a pamphlet.

This placed more pressure on King Charles to consider what Parliament had to say.

So really well done for all your hard work on that task, especially if your responses look like our models, which we saw on the screen there.

So now we've reached the end of our lesson and we're in a great position to summarise our learning from today.

We have seen that monarchs in the 16th and 17th centuries believed in the divine right of kings, that Parliament was not treated as an equal to the monarch.

Parliament was angered by many of Charles I's religious, political and financial policies.

The Grand Remonstrance was published as a pamphlet in 1641 to put pressure on Charles I to make reforms, and the issues between Charles I and Parliament became so bad that a civil war began in England in 1642.

So thank you for all of your hard work in today's lesson.

It's been a real pleasure working through it with yourselves, and I look forward to seeing you in future as we continue thinking about what pamphlets can tell us about English politics in the 17th century.