Finding stability and progress

When we discuss history, we often focus on how colonial companies like the East India Company exploited foreign lands, like draining wealth from India, Africa, and the Americas to enrich Europe. But there’s another side to this story that’s often overlooked. These companies weren’t just exploiting distant lands; they were exploiting their own people too and eventually collapsed.

The England that built an empire wasn’t a land of stability, wealth, or peace. It was a nation embroiled in chaos, war, and political struggle. Long before it ruled distant territories, England struggled to rule itself.

When Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603 without an heir, the English throne passed to James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England. This union brought England, Scotland, and Ireland under a single ruler, but it didn’t bring unity. James believed in the divine right of kings, ruling without Parliament’s approval. Yet, governing was expensive—his lavish court, military ambitions, and foreign policy drained the treasury. England, already unstable, teetered on the edge of financial and political crisis.

James sought to secure peace in Europe through marriage alliances, hoping to wed his son, Charles, to a Spanish princess. A union with Spain, however, was deeply unpopular. England was Protestant, Spain was Catholic, and many in Parliament saw the alliance as a betrayal. Meanwhile, Europe was engulfed in the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), a brutal conflict between Catholics and Protestants. James’s daughter, Elizabeth, was married to a Protestant prince in Germany, whose lands were under attack. Parliament pressured James to declare war on Catholic Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, but he resisted, clinging to diplomacy.

Then, in 1623, Prince Charles and his advisor, the Duke of Buckingham, traveled to Spain to finalize the marriage alliance. The mission ended in humiliation. Spain demanded that Charles convert to Catholicism. Enraged, Charles returned home, demanding war. The king, after years of avoiding conflict, had little choice but to give in. By the time James died in 1625, his son Charles I inherited not just the throne, but a kingdom on the brink of war.

Religion wasn’t just about faith, it dictated alliances, governance, and foreign policy. Kings could not rule as they pleased, they had to navigate the deeply held beliefs of their people. James I may have envisioned peace, but he couldn’t convince a Protestant Parliament to accept a Catholic marriage alliance. His vision was overpowered by public sentiment, raising an important question: How much control do rulers really have when their people refuse to change?

The conflicts in England reveal a hard truth—without a shift in public beliefs, even the most powerful leaders are constrained. England’s turmoil wasn’t just the result of poor leadership; it was rooted in a divided society. If a nation wants stability, it must invest in education, spreading knowledge that fosters unity rather than division.

James couldn’t change the way his people thought, and because of that, his dream of peace crumbled into war.

Although Charles I didn’t seek war, he was quickly drawn into conflicts with Spain, France, and Scotland. Wars required money, and for that, he needed Parliament. But Parliament had grown weary of kings ruling without them. They refused to fund his wars unless he granted them more power. Charles refused. Instead, he dissolved Parliament and ruled alone for eleven years—a period known as the Personal Rule.

To raise funds, Charles imposed illegal taxes. Those who refused to pay were imprisoned or had their property seized. The people had no voice in government, yet they were forced to finance its failures. His biggest mistake came in 1637 when he tried to enforce Anglican religious practices in Scotland. The Scots rebelled. To crush the uprising, Charles needed an army, and for that, he needed Parliament’s money.

By then, Parliament had had enough!

In 1642, England erupted into civil war. The country split into two factions: the Royalists, who supported the king, and the Parliamentarians, who wanted Parliament to have more power.

The key figures of the time included Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan military leader; Sir Thomas Fairfax, a brilliant general for Parliament; Archbishop William Laud, a staunch royalist; and John Lilburne, a radical thinker advocating for democracy. Parliament, frustrated with the king, passed a bill allowing it to establish an army without royal approval. England now had two armies, one loyal to the king, the other to Parliament. The nation was at war with itself!

For nearly a decade, families were torn apart, cities were destroyed, and thousands died. By 1649, Charles I was captured, put on trial, and executed—the first English king to be publicly beheaded.

People hoped that with the monarchy gone, England would find peace. But that wasn’t the case.

After Charles I’s execution, Oliver Cromwell seized power. Though he called himself Lord Protector, he ruled as a dictator. England became a military state. Strict laws were enforced, and emerging political groups such as the Quakers, Levellers, and Diggers demanded democracy and social equality. Instead of listening, Cromwell crushed opposition.

There’s a lesson in this history. Even 400 years later, we still see military dictatorships around the world. Dictators think in black and white, but human behavior is far more complex. You cannot govern a society like you govern a battlefield.

Under Cromwell’s rule, ordinary people continued to suffer. High taxes, military rule, and constant unrest made life as difficult as before. When Cromwell died in 1658, his son, Richard, briefly took over but quickly lost control.

By 1660, England was exhausted. The monarchy was restored under Charles II, though with reduced power. Parliament now had greater control, but after decades of conflict, people were ready to focus on something else.

After years of war, people began seeking answers beyond politics. The Scientific Revolution was in full swing. Figures like Margaret Cavendish debated new ideas, while Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Isaac Newton reshaped the way society understood the world. The age of blind loyalty to kings and religious dogma was giving way to logic, evidence, and progress.

Peace and prosperity come when people learn to live with differences rather than be divided by them. Unity doesn’t mean everyone must agree—it means learning to coexist despite disagreements. History has shown us that kings, generals, and dictators fail when they try to rule by force.

For a society to thrive, leadership must focus on service, not control. The lesson from history is clear. Those who seek to rule with an iron fist will eventually fall. Only through knowledge, dialogue, and a shared vision for the greater good can a nation find true stability and progress.