This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In 17th century England, Thorough was a name given by Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford to a scheme of his to establish absolute monarchy in England. Although "Thorough" is largely attributed to Strafford, its implementation can also be accredited to the Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud.
Thorough and Laud
Laud exploited his secular and religious roles to implement the policy of thorough in England. Laud used his authority as Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint only Arminian clergymen as Bishops; this in turn meant that most vicars they appointed would also be Arminian. Arminianism is a sect of Protestant Christianity which believes in the "Divine Right of Kings" and the (Catholic reminiscent) "Beauty of Holiness". Laud hoped that his new Arminian Church of England would make the English conform to believing in the "Divine Right", supporting Charles I's personal rule and setting up a parliament-independent monarchy.
Though English Arminians often supported expansion of royal authority, this did not correlate to support of absolutist monarchies. Arminians challenged Calvinist conception of absolute predestination by introducing an element of free will into Protestant soteriology; that is, they asserted that even the elect (those destined to salvation) could fall totally and finally from saving grace. This idea often translated into acceptance of an increased role of sacraments and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the "Beauty of Holiness", though this was not necessarily the case. (See Anti-Calvinism: The Rise of English Arminianism.)
The phrase "Divine Right of Kings" has been incorrectly interpreted as equivalent to absolutism. For further information, see Robert Bucholz & Newton Key, Early Modern England, 1485-1714: A Narrative History, 2d edition and David Cressy & Lori Anne Ferrell, Religion and Society in Early Modern England, 2d.
Laud used his authority over the prerogative courts to humiliate the gentry, who were largely Puritan and Presbyterian. As Puritans and Presbyterians, the gentry were opposed to Laud's beliefs and opposed to the idea of a parliament-independent monarchy. It is arguable whether the opposition of the gentry was based on religious grounds or on grounds of their own prospects of personal gain from a limited monarchy. This interpretation flows from Christopher Hill's Marxist interpretation of the origins of the English Civil War. William Laud used his authority over the prerogative courts to punish many people, including Puritan martyr Willia Prynne. In this era, religious issues were constitutional issues as in the case of Charles I and William Laud's attempt to impose the English Book of Common Prayer on Scotland. Ibid. See The English Revolution, Economic Problems of the Church: From Archbishop Whitgift to the Long Parliament, Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the 17th Century, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England
Thorough and Strafford
Strafford was Lord Deputy of Ireland, and domiciled in Ireland for much of the personal rule. He left the running of England largely down to Laud, although the application of Thorough in Ireland was entirely down to Strafford. The fear that Strafford instilled in the Irish through the policy of "Thorough" can be demonstrated when looking at the ease in which Strafford extracted subsidies from the Irish Parliament as the Second Bishops War approached during 1640.