How far were the events in Scotland responsible for the failure of Charles I’s Personal Rule?
Throughout Charles I’s Personal Rule, otherwise known as the ‘Eleven Year Tyranny’, he suffered many problems which all contributed to the failure of his Personal Rule. There are different approaches about the failure of Personal Rule and when it actually ended, especially because by April 1640 Short Parliament was in session. However, because it only lasted 3 weeks, historians tend to use November 1640 as the correct end of the Personal Rule when Long Parliament was called. There was much debate about whether the Personal Rule could have continued as it was, instead people generally believed that it would crumble when the King lost his supporters.
…show more content…
This was first brought to his attention in 1633 when he visited Scotland to have his coronation in Edinburgh, he noticed the ‘lack of ceremony and unscripted prayers’ and therefore introduced the New Prayer Book in 1637. Furthermore, the Puritan Network was a core group of opposition to Charles even though Parliament was absent, influential members of the network include Lord Saye and Sele, John Pym and Oliver Cromwell. In addition, the trial of Prynne, Bastwick and Burton caused further resentment towards Charles and his Personal Rule as they were accused for attacking the bishops. Moreover, the religious problems continued in Scotland with the First Bishops’ War because Alexander Leslie was the commander of the Scots and a ‘veteran of the Thirty Years’ War in Germany’. Also, most of the Scottish fighters were also experience with fighting as they served in the Swedish army fighting the cause of Protestantism in Sweden. Religion was the basis for the start of the First Bishops’ War and it was a headache for Charles after he tried to impose religious reforms to Scotland. Religion was an important reason for the failure of Personal Rule because the Puritan Network had important members and they were the main source of opposition against …show more content…
However, the most important aspect of incoming finance was Ship Money, this was a tax levied without the consent of Parliament. In the first year, 1635, Ship Money raised £213, 964 and was collected very quickly, whereas by 1639 only £53,000 which was calculated at 25% of the tax imposed. Also, the John Hampden trial of 1637 encouraged opposition against Charles and the government and it received large public interest. Furthermore, important Lords such as Lord Saye and Sele encouraged John Hampden with the trial, even though the Crown won the trial, five votes out of the twelve judges were in favour of Hampden. In addition, because of the effect of the trial ‘dozens of petitions against Ship Money were presented to the Privy Council’, eventually the trial caused a taxpayers’ strike in 1639. Overall, finances played an important part in Scotland, but were also responsible for problems in England. Seeing as the Scottish were controlling Newcastle, the Treaty of Ripon was a way of ending the financial problem. Also, Charles suffered from finances throughout his Personal Rule hence he desperately got his advisors to exploit old laws and expand Ship
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
Another source of opposition to Charles’ personal rule was that of the parliament and Charles’ financial expenditure. Charles’ personal rule lasted 11 long years in which he didn’t call parliament for any money or subsidies. To finance his problems, he used his position of power as king to call upon favours and rules that enabled him to gain money without calling parliament. One of these was selling titles. Distraint of Knighthood. This was where men who owned estates worth £40 per annum were in theory supposed to present them to be knighted at a new King’s coronation. Charles thus fined people for not doing so even though the practice had...
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
Wentworth was Charles most loyal supporter, he intimidated and bullied many people to give back there land to Charles which was previously sold to them by his Dad James I. Slowly but surely Wentworth drains the money out of Ireland, imposing high tax on imports etc.. Customs duties rose from a little over £25,000 in 1633–1634 to £57,000 in 1637–1638. His ways of raising money would start to have a bad effect on his reputation. Eventually Wentworth gets permission to set up an Irish army due to violent outbreaks, using the money raised by taxes in Ireland to train up the army, so effectivly the Irish public a paying for an Irish army to control themselves, this indeed made the Irish dispise him, this new development in tern got many protestants back in England worried as Charles has now got a Catholic army but yet he’s Protestant.
in 1629. It was symbolic of a time when the King felt that any joint
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
William the Conqueror and his Patronage William I, better known as William the Conqueror, began his medieval and political career at a young age when his father left him to go on a crusade. Effectively William became the Duke of Normandy. He had to fight against other members of the Norman royalty who desired William's land and treasure. William learned at an early age that the men who ruled Europe during the middle ages were primarily interested in their own greed at the expense of all else, including the concepts chivalry and honor. He soon became a feared military commander, conquering all in Normandy who would oppose his interests.
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
With any new monarch’s ascension to the throne, there comes with it changes in the policies of the country. From Elizabeth’s new council, to Henry’s documented polices and even to William the Silent’s inaction in response to threats were all policies that needed to be worked out by the new rulers. This group of rulers all had something in common; they chose to let their people make their religious preference solely on their beliefs but they all differed in their ways of letting this come about. This was monumental for the time period in which they lived, but it was something that needed to be done to progress national unity.
From the star of his reign Charles had disagreed with Parliament in much the same way as his father had done. He disagreed with Parliament because he thought they were getting to powerful. He did not like the fact that they could decide how much money they gave him or how much he could tax people. From 1629 to 1940 Charles was so annoyed with Parliament
In the Age of Absolutism, both England and France had strong absolute monarchies and leaders. Though Louis XIV, monarch of France, and Charles I, leader of Britain, both served as their country’s king and served in this role in different ways.
his family.” (Famous Scots 2) This differed from the public fury that was scene in
King Charles I left us with some of the most intriguing questions of his period. In January 1649 Charles I was put on trial and found guilty of being a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and a public enemy of England. He was sentenced to death and was executed on the 9th of February 1649. It has subsequently been debated whether or not this harsh sentence was justifiable. This sentence was most likely an unfair decision as there was no rule that could be found in all of English history that dealt with the trial of a monarch. Only those loyal to Olivier Cromwell (The leader opposing Charles I) were allowed to participate in the trial of the king, and even then only 26 of the 46 men voted in favour of the execution. Charles was schooled from birth, in divine right of kings, believing he was chosen by God to be king, and handing power to the parliament would be betraying God. Debatably the most unjust part of his trial was the fact that he was never found guilty of any particular crimes, instead he was found guilty of the damage cause by the two civil wars.
One of the key factors that led to the civil war was the contrasting beliefs of King Charles and the parliament. The monarchy believed in the divine rights of kings, explained by Fisher (1994, p335) as a biblically-based belief that the king or queen's authority comes directly from God and that he is not subjected to the demands of the people. On the other hand, the parliament had a strong democratic stance and though they respected and recognized the king's authority, they were constantly desiring and fighting for more rights to power. Although climaxing at the reign of King Charles, their antagonism stretched for centuries long before his birth and much of the power that once belonged to the monarchy had shifted over to the parliament by the time he came into power.
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...