• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess the reasons why Charles Is Personal Rule (1629-1640) became widely unpopular in England

Extracts from this document...


Assess the reasons why Charles I's Personal Rule (1629-1640) became widely unpopular in England In 1629, Charles I dissolved Parliament until his subjects should "see more clearly into our intentions and actions" and have "a better understanding of us and themselves". So the infamous period of Personal Rule began. For Charles to govern efficiently, he needed to be financially independent so that he would not be forced to call parliament in order to provide financial assistance through the grant of subsidies. The continuation of Personal Rule depended on the financial status of the Crown. Charles required plenty of money to run the country without parliamentary taxes and subsides. So as Personal Rule began in 1629, he embarked on a mission to acquire sufficient amounts of money to fund his government. Charles used many different methods of raising money, both legal and illegal. Over the next 11 years, he would explore and extend wardships, grant monopolies, use ancient laws and levy taxes without parliamentary consent, which eventually allowed Charles to be virtually solvent by the mid-1630s. However, this came at a price; the methods used by Charles became unpopular and disliked by members of the gentry. Charles' financial policies had angered the gentry in many ways. For example, he continued to collect Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary consent. During the eleven years Charles also used new forms of taxation, e.g. ...read more.


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. ...read more.


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. ?? ?? ?? ?? Lei Pang ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    Charles gave a number of key roles to Armenians. The most notable of these were the appointment of Montague as Royal Chaplain and Bishop of Chichester and Laud as preacher at the first parliament and Bishop of London. Montague's appointment would have caused controversy because it now meant that the most senior religious figure to the royal household was Armenian and therefore possibly Catholic.

  2. Why were Thomas Wentworth and William Laud Unpopular?

    However, Wentworth's methods were ruthless and despotic. The interests of the Crown were his priority, at the expense of all private interest. He alienated the predominantly Catholic "Old English" aristocracy in Ireland by promoting the interests of the new wave of Protestant English and Scottish settlers, then alienated the settlers

  1. The personal rule to 1640 was a success for Charles. To what extend do ...

    Nevertheless, statically, Charles' means of digging through neglected forms of rates and customs was successful as the Crown's income increased by 25% by 1636 when compared to a decade ago. Ironically, despite the opposition to Charles in regards to his means of raising money; the Crown was doing exactly what

  2. Was Charles I Trying to Establish Royal Absolutism during his Personal Rule?

    This humiliated them. Arminianism was such an ambiguous idea that, while it was clear that it had many similarities with Catholicism, it was not clear whether it could be compatible with the Church of England. This question was raised directly in 1634 when the Pope offered Laud the position of Cardinal.

  1. Why did King Charles I Resort to Personal Rule in 1629?

    He was also of slight appearance, only five foot four, and therefore lacked the assertiveness to ensure he was taken seriously. Because of all these reasons, Charles tended to isolate himself from his subjects. As a frustrated William Laud once pointed out, the King was "more willing not to hear than to hear".

  2. Why by 1629 had Charles I decided to rule without Parliament?

    With little money this left the crown vulnerable in it's foreign policy and also did not permit the country to be governed properly. The one person that annoyed Parliament more than any other was Charles' favourite, Buckingham to whom he gave large sums of money and lavished with expensive presents.

  1. How far were the actions and beliefs of Charles responsible for the crisis of ...

    irritation, so Charles inherited an England that was fairly stable religiously but starting to worry about Catholic threat, a country that was falling fast into big debt and that had friction between king and Parliament so this did not give Charles the best start.

  2. In 1640 most MP's wanted and expected redress of grievances and a settlement of ...

    many MP's were fearful of being punished, of the king reversing Acts, and now that they had put Strafford to death illegally, many MP's were deeply disturbed by what they had done and were beginning to turn against Pym and his ruthless aims.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work