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

Consider The Argument That “The Most Provocative Issue In Arousing Opposition to Charles 1 In The Years 1637 – 1640 Was Religion

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Consider The Argument That "The Most Provocative Issue In Arousing Opposition to Charles 1 In The Years 1637 - 1640 Was Religion During the years 1637 - 1640, there were a lot of issues that led to people opposing Charles I. An argument put forward is that, 'the most provocative issue in arousing opposition to Charles I in the years 1637 - 1640 was religion', but there were also many other issues like finance, politics and the nature of Charles character that also caused tension between the King and his people. Religion was one issue that raised a lot concern and opposition, as it was an area that affected everyone's everyday life. The main reason for this was because it was a belief, and a belief cannot be forced onto people. There were many different groups of religious people, the Catholics, the Protestants, Puritans and Arminians; all of whom had slightly different beliefs. This is the underlying cause of all of the religious problems that arose during the reign of Charles I, especially nearing the end of his Personal Rule. ...read more.

Middle

Major opposition arose when Charles I and Laud tried to impose the New Scottish Prayer book upon Scottish churchgoers. It was based on the English Prayer Book and Charles I wanted it to be read in churches throughout Scotland. The New Scottish Prayer Book emphasised the importance of the ceremonies and the Scots believed that this was an English plot to turn to Scots away from the path of Protestantism towards that of Catholic. This suspicion led to the drawing up of the National Covenant in 1638; a pledge to, 'maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus.....and abolish all false religion'. Many people came to sign the covenant, showing their opposition to Laud and Charles I. Even though Charles I tried to calm them down by giving them concessions, but when Church leaders met, they resolved to abolish episcopacy in Scotland. Charles saw that he needed to stop this as his authority as King was being challenged and decided to use force. In 1638 he ordered the counties of England to raise forces to fight the Scots; the first time for centuries that a monarch had attempted war without calling Parliament. ...read more.

Conclusion

There were questions over whether this was really legal, but this was only the beginning of the King's legally dubious methods of collecting money. The main opposition was caused by the collection of Ship Money. Theoretically, coastal countries were required to provide ships for royal service in times of emergency, but in practice most people were charged and money was sent instead of ships. In the years 1634 - 1640, JP's were made to collect ship money even though England was not at war. Charles I said the money was needed to protect the country against pirates. In 1635, ship money was collected from everyone. The tax raised many issues. It had become a permanent tax, not one that was collected when it was needed and everyone was paying it. Questions were also raised about where the taxes were spent, as it seemed as though it was being used to convey Spanish ships, not protecting the country against pirates. This caused a lot of suspicion and opposition towards the King as people didn't like paying taxes, but they also were not sure where the money was being spent and didn't like that it had become a permanent tax. ...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. Was Charles I Trying to Establish Royal Absolutism during his Personal Rule?

    held in secret and the observation of the subject's basic rights could not be ensured. However, this was not an absolutist court because its powers were limited somewhat; for instance, it could not sentence someone to death. There were other aspects of the Personal Rule that Charles' opponents did not like.

  2. Why did Charles V fail to crush Luther?

    Charles was also lenient on allowing the princes to adopt Lutheranism within their individual states. The failure of successive Popes to act and their resistance to reform made it impossible for Charles V to reach a reasonable compromise with the Lutherans.

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

    He was different from James in the way he dealt with anyone who disagreed with his views, with malice and retaliation. He was not comfortable with compromise and was always set on getting his own way so it is inevitable that a character such as this would cause much conflict.

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

    king and parliament was so severely damaged that they themselves had triggered an anger in the king that would eventually lead him to call on a war. Charles was now furious at the reduction of his power, the way the Parliament had manipulated not only judicial but political matters, and

  1. To what extent had Catholic opposition to religious changes disappeared by 1640?

    But even this ostensibly opposing faction came to accept Royal Supremacy, although they did oppose further doctrinal change, whereas Cranmer and Cromwell wanted further reform. However, just because Henry broke with Rome it did not mean he was breaking with Catholicism, and there is evidence to suggest he died a Catholic.

  2. Why was there so much hostility towards Charles by 1640?

    Also he could call and dissolve Parliament at his own pleasure. Therefore, if he wished he could ?progrove? Parliament, and interrupt its sitting for as long as he liked. Parliament had begun to realise that it very much had its own rights.

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