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

Charles I. What was the nature of personal rule and why did it end?

Extracts from this document...


What was the nature of personal rule and why did it end? When Charles I first came to the thrown in 1625 he also had the same view as his father James I, that a monarch was entitled to their royal prerogative and divine right. The royal prerogative meant that the monarch?s powers weren?t to be challenged and a monarch was able to open and close parliament, as they wanted. The term personal rule was used by Charles I during 1629 and 1640 and was a period of time where Charles ruled without consulting parliament. Historians often called this period of time the ?eleven years tyranny? as during this time Parliament didn?t meet at all and new laws couldn?t be passed. However this wasn?t the first time personal rule occurred as during James?s reign he also had 11 years personal rule with a brief period called the ?addled parliament? in 1614 which lasted two weeks due to no issues being resolved. This shows that even though Charles didn?t have a good relationship with parliament, it was an ongoing problem from even James I rein and it put jeopardy on not only political matters but also religion, foreign policy and finance as parliament wasn?t use to the idea opening and closing government as through Elizabeth?s reign parliament met frequently. ...read more.


Another way in which money was obtained was ship money. In theory ship money was supposed to be used to provide ships for the royal service in times of emergency. However under Charles?s personal rule it became a real issue and many inland counties had to pay this new tax. It became a permanent tax, not an emergency tax, and was not benefiting the ships but in fact Charles?s own revenue. This problem seemed to become more pivotal in 1637 in the Hampden?s Case where John Hampden refused to pay ship money. This case was significant as it was the first step in retaliating against personal rule as only 7 out 5 judges voted in favour for the king even though all the judges were Charles?s royal appointments. It could also be argued that it was significant because it was a trigger for many others to refuse paying ship money. Religion was another issue during Charles?s personal rule as William Laud?s new religious policies were seen as being destructive to the simple church that Elizabeth created. William Laud?s aims for the church was to completely reform the church by raising the educational level of the clergy, enforcing the role of divine right, and reform the way the church was presented so that the ceremonies were more extravagant. ...read more.


the army, Earl of Arunder, was unable to control the army efficiently this lead to Charles, after seeking advice from Earl Strafford, recalling the Short parliament. However the short parliament proved to be a great disappointment to Charles as he needed money and parliament refused to vote subsidies with settling the grievances first .In result of this Charles thought it was beneath him and decided to dissolve parliament after three weeks. Finally the issues discussed in this essays has highlighted that the nature of personal rule period was very controversial and had to end as Charles could not rule England, Scotland and Ireland without sufficient amount of money and the support of Parliament as it first meant that because there wasn?t any parliament it caused a growing in opposition and a growth of puritan networks which is why in the short parliament was hostile to granting subsidies and due to the bishops war he didn?t have sufficient amount of money to train the troops efficiently and the fact that he was so adamant about royal prerogative and divine right that he even introduced William Laud hindered his personal rule even more because puritans didn?t like the fact that Charles was moving towards Arminianism put people in a hostile mood to start of with. ...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 King Charles I Resort to Personal Rule in 1629?

    Of course, the King was greatly pleased by the sermon and punished the Archbishop for censuring it. Parliament saw this episode as further evidence of Charles' belief in the Divine Right of Kings. When Charles succeeded James in 1625, he wasted no time in finding his bride: Henrietta Maria of France.

  2. Why Did Charles I resort to Personal Rule?

    Parliament believed that Buckingham had strict control over Charles I, some even said Charles preferred his company more than his wife. Therefore, Buckingham had the ability to suggest expeditions such as these. In 1626 Parliament began the impeachment of Charles' favourite subject, Buckingham.

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

    Parliament was adjourned on the 26th of June. Two months later on the 23rd August Buckingham was assassinated, the relationship between King and Parliament changed from bad to worse as he blamed them for the murder.

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

    Laud was the King's instigator of his religious beliefs. If the King did not believe completely in the principles of the Church of England, this was not a problem that would threaten to bring down the King's rule. The trouble was the nature of Charles' religious eccentricity. As already mentioned, it was very Catholic.

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

    many did not like Pym's radical ways, so they began to feel a returning sense of loyalty to the king and began to back away from Pym's radicalism. All the MP's shared the common goals of dismantling and getting rid of the machinery of the Personal Rule, making sure it

  2. One of the first political grievances that built up during the Personal Rule of ...

    It has become noticeable that there would have been no financial grievances if there were not any political, if Charles had never decided to rule on his own without Parliament. The grievances all stem from Charles not having enough money to cater for his expensive lifestyle and tastes.

  1. To what extent is it appropriate to describe Charles' rule without Parliament, 1629-40, as ...

    The 1620s had been a time of tremendous turbulence - conflict in Parliament, great religious controversy - and Charles looked to his fellow monarchs in France and Spain who were able to deal with this kind of trouble more effectively than he did.

  2. How Successful was Edward Carson in His Defense of Unionism During The Third Home ...

    Bonar-Law had said that he was uneasy about the prospect of Carson establishing the provisional government and that if Home Rule was enacted that some form of Ulster exclusion would be acceptable and the rest of Ireland could have Home Rule.

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