Treason During The Lud Trial Essay

To what extent were the Charges of English Treason dealt in the trial (1640-1645) of Archbishop William Laud of Canterbury justified?

The charges were not justified based on the lacking evidence relating Laud to Catholicism intent of accroachment and the exploitation of the metaphoric definition of the Crown.

Definition of Treason during the Laud Trial (600)

The political opposition in Parliament seeking to convict Laudian policy of treason required over three years to acquire sufficient evidence of treason to establish a legitimate case against William Laud. Despite the religiously motivated inclination to condemn Laudian religious dominance in policy, the Parliament still needed to justify their case of treason in consideration of the

The overall scope of treason presented by Edward III sought to establish the authority of the dominance of the king within the sphere of the law so as to present himself, as head of the State, with powers to subdue opposition accroaching on the powers of royal authority. The Tudor Monarchy under Henry VII reiterated the law of treason as subjective to the king de facto, the current ruler, instead of the king de jure, thus distinctly clarifying the encroachment defined by Edward III as relevant and subjective only to the throne of the time. In 1534, after a controversial break from the Holy See regarding the declined annulment of Henry VIII’s second wife, Henry VIII further defined treason as to consider/claim “the king a heretic, schismatic, tyrant, or usurper”, thus setting the precedence of religious authority of the king’s sphere of power and influence. The Parliamentary opposition in the trial of Laud sought to establish accroachment on the throne as a