Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.
Buckingham formed a very close relationship with Charles which many MP’s feared. This close relationship and the amount of power that Buckingham possessed, often led to arguments between the King and Parliament, which eventually led to the king adopting personal rule. Buckingham monopolised Patronage at court, and advancement in Office was only approved with Buckingham support. Many MP’s were suspicious of his close relationship with both Charles 1 and James 1, and despised the fact that they could only gain advancement in the career with his consent. Furthermore Buckingham had arranged the marriage of Charles and Henrietta Maria who was Catholic. Many MP’s thought Buckingham was trying to introduce Catholicism in England, which they thought would threaten the ancient liberties of the Church of England. The king’s protection of Buckingham led to Parliament being dissolved which angered many MPs. In 1626 Parliament attempted to Impeach Buckingham, however the King stopped this by dissolving Parliament which prevented them from passing the subsidies which the King needed. These show how Buckingham’s action caused disputes between the King and Parliament, which eventually led to the king adopting Personal Rule as he thought he could manage without Parliament. However it can be argued that Buckingham wasn’t the main cause of why Charles introduced Personal Rule. Firstly Buckingham was assassinated before Personal Rule was introduced. If Buckingham was the cause of the arguments between Parliament and the King, after his death the King and Parliament could have reconciled and therefore avoided Personal Rule. The fact that the King just split the titles that Buckingham held between a small group of people who he used as his advisers during Personal Rule, help strengthen the Argument that Buckingham wasn’t the main cause of why Charles introduced Personal Rule.
Another factor that can be attributed to the implementation of Personal Rule is Religious grievances. Firstly his marriage to Henrietta Maria, who was Catholic, caused much suspicion. Parliament felt that as she was openly allowed to practise her religion, with her bishops that she would try and persuade the king to adopt Catholicism in England. This added an ideological element into the political struggle which further caused disagreements between the king and Parliament. In addition to this unlike James 1, Charles didn’t stay religiously central. His promotion of Armenian Clergy was seen by puritans as an attempt to introduce Catholicism under a different name. The Church of England was very important to many MP’s, and the fear of Roman Catholicism, lead to Parliament restricting what they allowed Charles to do. By restricting him Charles got angry and resorted to personal rule. Religious grievances weren’t the main cause of the introduction of Personal Rule, however only added to the disagreements between the King and Parliament.
Charles personality was also a major factor in his decision to embark on Personal Rule. Charles was known for being obstinate. He therefore wasn’t very likely to compromise, or even agree anything with Parliament that didn’t directly benefit him. His main characteristic that caused him to introduce Personal Rule was his strong belief in Divine Right. He believed that he was appointed by God and didn’t have to answer to anyone but God. This caused resentment from many MP’s as Charles felt that he deserved everything, and that Parliament shouldn’t be questioning what Charles should have however they should just give it to him. The creation of the Petition of Rights in 1628, show how Parliament was trying to control Charles. The Petition of rights included the fact that it was illegal to introduce taxes without parliament consent and illegal to imprison people without cause showing their cause of imprisonment. Even though Charles initially agreed to accept this, within a year he had decided to embark on Personal Rule, as he felt to constraint and the Petition of Rights was him answering to Parliament. The concept of Personal Rule again further shows that Charles had a strong belief in Divine Right. Without Parliament Charles would have no one to answer to but God, and this was the way he felt appropriate for a King to run a country. Charles belief in divine right was a strong factor as to why he decided to rule without government. It is more of an important factor then the relationship between Charles and Buckingham, however it wasn’t the sole factor as to why he introduced Personal Rule.
The other factor along with his belief of Divine Right was Charles need for Finance. He was fighting a war with Spain and France and needed finance to support himself. However instead of just granting Charles subsidies, Parliament used this time to try and discuss grievances with him. This went against Charles belief of Divine Right, and slowed down Charles process of receiving money. Furthermore this policy of irregular subsidies wasn’t going to make for a stable England in the Long Run, and if Charles was going to continue to fight the war he needed another form of stable income. This lead to him dismissing Parliament and perusing illegal finance methods. Charles ability to finance himself can be seen through his initiative of the Forced Loan which he implemented when he dismissed Parliament in 1626. Instead of receiving the 4 subsidies from Parliament, Charles demanded that his subjects give a gift to the crown. This not only raised more money than the 4 subsidies, but was quicker and a more effective way of raising money. The five Knights case as a result of the Forced Loan also strengthened Charles’s belief in divine rights. 5 Knights were imprisoned and demanded to know why, the response was “special command of the King.” This showed that the King has ultimate power, and cannot be challenged. This also lead to Charles belief that he was able to better finance himself without Parliament which can be seen as a one of the main reasons why he introduced parliament.
Although Charles relationship with Buckingham alienated Charles from Parliament and was the cause of many of the problems between them it wasn’t the main cause of Charles introducing Personal Rule. Charles belief in Divine Right, meant that as long as he was able to finance himself effectively without Parliament, then he could embark on Personal Rule. During 1626 when he dismissed Parliament and was able to finance himself effectively , this showed him he could embark on Personal Rule. Therefore the 2 main important factors of Charles introducing personal rule was his belief in Divine Right and the ability of Stable finance.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
In terms of finance, it can be argued that the situation was not successful. The Government managing it could not provide a stable financial settlement. Largely the King did not have much in the way of money, and Charles' excessive spending on pleasurable activities, at the beginning of his reign only exacerbated the disastrous financial situation. Initially, although Charles agreed to give up feudal dues that were revived by his father, he was granted an annual income of £1.2 million by Parliament. However, this arrangement had two drawbacks. Firstly, the financial settlement that Charles was given, was simply not adequate to his needs. Secondly, the hearth tax that was imposed to raise the money was highly unpopular to the people. It is hard to say a reign is 'successful' if the Monarch is unpopular, especially as the country at that time, was still suffering from the financial situation left behind by the…
- 1214 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
For the greater part of the 1630’s Englishmen paid their taxes, most likely grumbling whilst doing it, but they were paid. During his personal rule 1629-40, Charles I needed to raise revenue by using non-parliamentary means, i.e. in ways he would not need a parliament’s permission to collect. In order to do this, Charles changed certain policies to make them more financially gaining and brought back taxes that had not been used for numerous years, ranging from Ship Money to Credit to Monopolies.…
- 2109 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Charles I did not go along with the parliament. He took a serious hit during his 22 years as king. He began to give into extra parliamentary resorts such as, new tariffs and duties and collection of discontinued taxes. This angered the parliament as taxes were being illegally collected for an already unfortunate war and one that involved France…
- 637 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
James I was an absolutist ruler who emphasized the divine right of kings and sought to restrain Parliament under his will. Consequently, conflicts were inevitable as James I, and ensuing rulers, often found himself deficient of funds, and Parliament served as the gateway to the money. James I and his successor Charles I called Parliamentary meetings solely to ascertain the issue of funds. During this period, Parliament was rarely called upon and after these debates for money, Charles I and James I completely dissolved the Parliament. I did so because he agreed to admit the illegality of his taxes in turn for funding from Parliament. Afterwards, he abolished the Parliament to pursue his own endeavors. Furthermore, during Charles tenure, the English Civil War took place as a result from the lack of amity between Charles and Parliament. The Scottish invaded England, but Parliament refused to allow Charles to raise an army, because they feared he would abuse his powers and assail English citizens who opposed him. Charles I was eventually defeated and executed by Oliver Cromwell. Following the inadequacy of Cromwell, Charles II rose to power and was keyed the "merry monarch" for his easy-going nature. He imposed the Cabal system, a group of five individuals who handled the political issues of England; the term Cabal stems from the initials of each official member. This system acted as a type of Parliament in its methods of governing. During this period as a whole, it is evident that Parliament often conflicted with the ideals of the ruling monarch.…
- 540 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
When King Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he was set on the idea of a personal rule without any help from Parliament. This he could manage, as long as he avoided war. His aim was to sort out the country's finances, and with the help of Strafford and Laud, impose a 'Policy of Thorough'. This policy was the idea of a fair and paternalistic government with no corruption. However, within 11 years, Charles' personal rule had failed and England was drifting into war. There are mixed opinions on whether this failure was solely due to the actions of the King, or those of third parties, for example, Strafford or Laud.…
- 1052 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Charles the First became king in England, (also in Scotland) in 1625. He caused many problems with the Parliament because he believed in absolute monarchy. At one point Parliament limited Charles The First's power and he went along with a petition they had made but soon dismissed the Parliament.…
- 370 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
His childhood left a mark on Charles's behaviour as king. Like James he was a believer in the divine right of kings. Unlike James, he was absolutist and tried to put it into practice. Given his belief in divine right, he saw all parliaments privileges as being subject to the approval of the monarch, not as liberties that had existed without the judgement of the monarch. Also unlike James He saw all criticism and anyone who questioned him as disloyal. An example of these in combination is when Charles I dissolved parliament because he was being criticized by Parliament as he felt he didn't need them as long as he could avoid war. This began the 11 year period known as the Personal Rule where he ran the country through royal prerogative instead of in cooperation with parliament.…
- 611 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Religion was a major impact on Charles and Parliaments relationship causing major tension in the years 1625-1629; however there were other contributing factors, such as key individuals, finance, foreign policy and Charles’ own personality. Furthermore I do not agree with the statement that religion was the most important factor that caused the breakdown of relations between the crown and Parliament. Instead I believe finance and foreign policy to be the most important factors in the breakdown in relations.…
- 1601 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Elizabeth’s financial legacy to James was very poor as she had been involved in a multitude of wars, suffered from extreme inflation towards the end of her reign which was compounded by her struggles with monopolies. This in turn partially led to James’ tenuous relationship with parliament over royal expenditure, parliamentary insecurity, corruption and scandal, and his own dealings with finances. Whereas source 12 suggests that Elizabeth’s financial difficulties was indeed the true reason for James’ parliamentary problems, Sources 13 and 14 dispute this fact stating that the king’s personal extravagance and the parliaments own fear of being disposable had a more relevant effect on the relationship between James and Parliament. This essay will…
- 1148 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the…
- 949 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Although CharlesⅡ never went to the extremes of his predecessors, he still was a believer in the Divine Right of Kings, giving him, in his mind, full power over England. All in all, though CharlesⅡ was not a bad ruler to fix much of Englands problems, he still kept the beliefs of his father. As said by Judge Blackstone, The constitution of England had arrived to its full vigour, and the true balance between liberty and prerogative was happily established by law, in the reign of King Charles the SecondJamesⅡ, unlike his brother CharlesⅡ, was just like his father. JamesⅡ believed, to the extreme, in the Divine right of Kings. Along with his previously stated belief, JamesⅡ also believed in Absolute Monarchy and was a devote Catholic. These three beliefs caused JamesⅡ to be very much disliked by parliament, and therefore, the people. After putting up with two years of his reign, Parliament finally called in Mary, JamesⅡprotestant daughter, and William of Orange, her husband, to come and force JamesⅡ to abdicate the throne. This change was welcome. Although JamesⅡ and his descendants, who are known as the Jacobites, tried to reclaim the throne they never…
- 535 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
James I's belief in "divine right" of kings, which meant God had chosen him to be ruler, led him not to rely on Parliament. Rather than depend on Parliament, James I and his successor, Charles I looked for other ways to acquire funds such as illegally levying taxes. Parliament was rarely called on during this period. In response to Charles illegal taxation, Parliament passed the Petition of Right which stated that, to pass any law the ruler must consent to Parliament. In order to continue ruling without Parliament, Charles used Ship Money to collect taxes as revenue. He might have been able to rule indefinitely without Parliament if not for his religious policies which provoked war with Scotland and forced Charles to call Parliament into session. This session, known as the Long Parliament was determined to limit the power of the king. It resolved that Parliament would meet at least every three years. Parliament later split with Charles I and declared war on him. Both James I and Charles I fought to suppress Parliament during their reigns and claimed absolute power due to the "divine right" of kings.…
- 642 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The events and sentiments that ran through 17th century England were perhaps as paradoxical as Charles the 1st’s head being sewn back to his body after his execution. This era saw a polarization of thought, action and outcome in regards to several events, people and institutions. The height of this polarization existed between the monarchy and the parliament, as questions arose in regards to the extent of power the king could wield, and the extent of power Parliament was willing to allow the king to wield. The two ends of the power spectrum were absolute monarchy , which gave the king unlimited powers, or “royal prerogatives” according to the Stuarts due to their “divine right” to exercise it, and the other a constitutional monarchy , where…
- 823 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Charles was able to exile Monmoth to the Netherlands in September 1679, use his prerogative powers to dissolve the exclusion parliaments 3 times and prorogue parliament 7 times and attend sessions in the house of Lords to secure support as well as allowing James back into the Privvy council in 1684. It also created greater stability for the elite with respect to property right. The fact he was able to defeat exclusion would have proven that Charles II was a strong monarch and able to stand up to parliament. Furthermore his success would have given Charles and much of the country including Torys confidence in the security of the monarchy which explains why 1681 was a turning point and seen by historians as a royalist recovery. The period between 1681-1685 is seen as a period of growing absolutism where Charles successfully got rid of his opposnents such as Shaftesbury and Monmoth during the Rye house plot and manipulate local government using charters and also manipulate the judiciary. He also used the Church for propaganda made sure that his decleration was read out from pulpits. Therefore Charles’s successful defeat of the exclusion crisis and growing absolutism is evidence that he was in a stronger…
- 1227 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Parliament never desired a position where they could control England with full-fledged power. They simply wanted enough limitations on the king’s power that would guarantee the people certain rights that the king cannot take away, which juxtaposes the belief of divine right. Parliament tried numerous ways to create a structured administration where the king’s power was restricted and Parliament, including the people that they represented, was given a voice in government but their countless tries were futile and a disappointment. Preceding the Civil War and many times after it, Parliament tried to approach the king to present to him their ideas of how power should be distributed and used. They came up with laws and regulations to resolve political problems with the king, such as the Petition of Rights, Nineteen Propositions, and Grand Remonstrance. The king declined to acknowledge these laws as genuine laws. He either signed and disregarded it or he absolutely refused to bother himself with the minor complaints of Parliament. This eventually led to the conclusion that King Charles I was the type of man who could not be trusted with the legal promises he made to his people. The worries of Parliament were not seen as a major concern of his and he repudiated to consider any negotiations with whatever Parliament had to say. The king’s intractable ways caused Parliament to break away from his power before England became a place of political disaster.…
- 729 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays