2. Cite Evidence The Petition of Right challenged

the traditional idea of the divine right of kings.

Give at least one specific example that supports

this statement, and explain how its underlying

message weakened the divine right theory.

Respuesta :

Answer:

The Petition of Right challenged the idea of Divine Right of Kings by restricting the authorities of Kings and Queens and giving more power to the Parliament.

Explanation:

The Petition of Rights is a document enacted in the Constitution on 7th June, 1628, by the Parilament overruling the authorities of the King Charles I. Charles I was the proponent of Divine Rule, which means that  Kings and Queens were appointed by God to rule over His people and thus they are not answerable to anyone for their actions.

Using power of Divine Rule, Charles I began to impose taxes on the people and levied forced loans, stating that the loan is to the Crown. To impede this authority of the King, members of the Parliament formulated the Petition of Right.

The Petition of Right confronted the idea of Divine Rule by restricting the authority of the King and reclaiming thhe rights of the Parliament and citizens.

One of the right restricted from the king was his imposition of taxes. The Petition of Rights stated that no person shall pay taxes to the king without Parliament's approval. The underlying message of this restriction weakened the Divine Right as now King had to ask Parliament to pass any loan and have to be answerable to Parliament.

'no person should be compelled to  make any loans to the king against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and  by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition called a  benevolence, nor by such like charge; by which statutes before mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this  realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage,  aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.' (textual evidence)