• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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. This essay examines the actions of Charles VII in relation to events pertaining to ...

    However, the Church's compliance to Charles' desired outcome displayed submissive behaviour not characteristic of absolute power thus, their supremacy was only ceremonial. Despite the Church's endeavour to re-establish their influence, Charles' authority was fortified as the cooperation of the church indicated their acceptance of his crown.53 The Trial of Rehabilitation,

  1. Why Did Charles I resort to Personal Rule?

    He was also unpopular due to that he had survived the death of James I and still remained the kings 'favourite' loyal subject, which consequently caused jealously among parliament. This is due to the patronage (titles and offices) which came to Buckingham as a result of being very close to the crown.

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

    Firstly, it is important to realise that Laud was a key supporter of Charles and that any criticism levelled at Laud was also at Charles. Laud was the King's instigator of his religious beliefs.

  1. How far would you support the view that 1637 marked the highpoint of Charles ...

    for the navy, he ordered port towns to pay up the sum of the ships he was owed. Charles extended the responsibility of ship towns at first to all coastal areas, even those that were not port towns and then to the whole country, effectively creating the first national tax.

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

    With this new found possibility of a resolution, Bonar-Law writes to Carson to express the desire of Churchill to reach a compromise. Carson not only endorsed what Bonar-Law says but in particular, agrees his position on some form of Ulster exclusion, the whole of Ulster being preferable but the minimum being six.

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