To what extent do you believe with the view that it was Charles himself who caused the failures of the Personal Rule?
To what extent do you believe with the view that it was Charles himself who caused the failures of the Personal Rule?
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. One of the first things that Charles did once he had removed Parliament from the equation was to end the wars with Spain and France. This would stop him spending unnecessary money, and it would mean that he would not need Parliament to aid him in gaining any more, though he swiftly realised that he needed to find some new sources of income on his own. He went about discovering these using financial antiquarianism i.e. he looked back in history for ways to make money through taxes without creating new Acts of Parliament. One of the most famous of these was 1634 Ship Money. Ship Money was an ancient tax payable by those in coastal communities for their defence. Originally, it was only imposed on these coastal areas, though in 1636, Charles extended it to the whole country, with payment on an annual basis. Ship Money was a big earner – Charles achieved 90% of what he needed through each annual tax. However, opposition to these taxes was growing, and in 1637, and man by the name of John Hampden refused to pay. Hampden was taken to court and ultimately put into jail. This example of rebellion caused the opposition to strengthen even more, with the whole country being aware that it was Charles who imposed these rules. Another
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. One of the first things that Charles did once he had removed Parliament from the equation was to end the wars with Spain and France. This would stop him spending unnecessary money, and it would mean that he would not need Parliament to aid him in gaining any more, though he swiftly realised that he needed to find some new sources of income on his own. He went about discovering these using financial antiquarianism i.e. he looked back in history for ways to make money through taxes without creating new Acts of Parliament. One of the most famous of these was 1634 Ship Money. Ship Money was an ancient tax payable by those in coastal communities for their defence. Originally, it was only imposed on these coastal areas, though in 1636, Charles extended it to the whole country, with payment on an annual basis. Ship Money was a big earner – Charles achieved 90% of what he needed through each annual tax. However, opposition to these taxes was growing, and in 1637, and man by the name of John Hampden refused to pay. Hampden was taken to court and ultimately put into jail. This example of rebellion caused the opposition to strengthen even more, with the whole country being aware that it was Charles who imposed these rules. Another