It would suggest that both the financial and religious policies undertaken by Charles created a lot of anger among his subjects. The financial policies faced deep resentment from members of the gentry, while the religious policies were met with fury from Puritans.
Charles further irritated the gentry by his policy of Thorough which aimed to provide centralized control of local government. Charles and his advisor, Sir Thomas Wentworth, introduced the Books of Orders in 1631 which intended to ensure that local officials, e.g. JPs and Petty constables, properly enforced the law of the land. Although they were generally successful, the gentry who ran local government resented the constant interference from central government. They cherished their independence. The gentry had provided local government on a goodwill basis, so they felt that local government belonged to them, and not the state. This indicates a resented policy which annoyed the gentry. This can be supported by the gentry demonstrating inertia so as not to damage their own interests.
Therefore, it would appear that one of the main reasons for the unpopularity of Personal Rule is that its policies caused deep resentment among many people who saw Charles as the creator of these policies. For instance, the Protestants disliked the religious changes, the gentry didn’t enjoy the constant interference from central government, and they were also worried about the financial status of the Crown.
Another reason for the unpopularity of Personal Rule was that not only did the policies increase resentment but they also enhanced fears of absolutism. Charles’ financial policies showed examples of arbitrary government. For example, he collected Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary consent. He also exploited the grant of monopolies, wardships, Ship Money, etc. All this had allowed Charles to be solvent by the mid-1630s. Financial independence was a feature of absolutism. Charles had achieved this financial independence through unpopular policies such as Ship Money.
The religious changes to the Church perhaps best represent the growing fears of absolutism. In 17th century Europe, Catholicism and absolutism went hand in hand. Countries in Europe, such as France and Spain, were Catholic and had an absolute monarch as well. So any movement towards Catholicism increased fears of absolutism.
As Charles’ preferred brand of Anglicanism was Arminianism, Charles exclusively promoted Arminians at the expense of other men from other religious factions. This increased fears of Catholicism (because of the closeness of Catholicism and Arminianism). Fears of Catholicism were also heightened with the growing Catholic influence in the court. The Queen, Henrietta Maria, was a Catholic, and allowed to practise her religion in the court, as was members of the Privy Council, such as Lord Treasurer Weston.
The physical changes to the church, which aimed at establishing order and beauty in the church (the beauty of holiness), added to the growing worries of absolutism. The main physical change was the moving of the communion table to the east and railed off from the laity. This change elevated the power of the clergy over the laity. A high altar and a powerful clergy reminded people of Catholicism.
In terms of doctrinal changes, Charles and Laud rejected the idea of predestination, a doctrine much cherished by Protestants. Instead, it was replaced by the Catholic doctrine of free will. Again, the change in the direction of the church towards Arminianism was seen by many as a change to Catholicism and this augmented the suspicions of absolutism.
The Bishop’s Wars were a direct result of Charles imposing Arminianism on Presbyterian Scotland. The idea was completely rejected by the Scottish clergy and nobility who formed the Covenanters to defend the Kirk. What’s more, the Bishop’s Wars resulted in two humiliating defeats for the English, intensifying the gentry’s hate of Personal Rule.
It would appear that a combination of religious factors appeared to have enlarged and heightened the fears of absolutism. The physical and doctrinal changes reminded people of Catholicism which were enhanced by the new status of Catholicism in the court of Charles I. This led to increased fears of absolutism since absolutism and Catholicism went simultaneously. However, Charles wasn’t a Catholic; his policies simply made him look like one because of its similarity to Catholicism. Therefore, people became apprehensive because of the image the policies gave out rather than the actual meanings of the policies.
Both financial solvency and Arminianism increased fears of an absolute monarchy. The policy of Thorough further enhanced this concern. Thorough allowed for centralized control of government, an element of absolutism. Although Thorough didn’t have much of an impact in England, Ireland had experienced the full capability of Thorough. Sir Thomas Wentworth had ruled Ireland as an arbitrary government for eight years. In those eight years, he simply took land in the West of Ireland, reformed the customs systems so that farmers had to make more contributions, exploited the Court of Wards and imposed new taxes. Furthermore, the prerogative courts were used to enforce unpopular religious measures (a trait of absolutism). Across the Irish Sea, these actions struck fear in the eyes of many English aristocrats. Many members of the gentry became ever more fearful of what was happening in Ireland might be replicated by Charles in Personal Rule.
It is clear that Thorough increased concerns of absolutism. Alongside the financial and religious policies, they suggest that Charles wanted absolutism in England. However, these policies didn’t necessarily mean that Charles wanted to be an absolute monarch. To govern the country without parliamentary endorsement, he needed money. Charles preferred beauty, ceremony, ritual and obedience in the church instead of the plain, simple, democratic Protestant church but that didn’t make a Catholic. If he were to govern efficiently, he had to have centralized control of local government. Therefore, we can see that the people’s worries actually enhanced the fears of absolutism more than Charles’ actions.
In conclusion, there are two main reasons why Personal Rule was so unpopular. The first is that the policies employed by Charles became resented by both members of the gentry and peasantry. Secondly, although he didn’t mean for it, his policies led to an expansion of the fear of absolutism. This was fuelled by the fact that his wife and members of the Privy Council were actual Catholics. Both reasons contributed to the unpopularity of Personal Rule. The fears of absolutism came from a false image created by the unpopular policies which had angered many people in England.
