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

How far do you agree that the character of King Charles I is most responsible for the Kings decision to rule without parliament in 1629?

Extracts from this document...


How far do you agree that the character of King Charles I is most responsible for the King?s decision to rule without parliament in 1629? At a young age Charles was a quiet, solitary prince. His brother Henry was the heir to the throne until his death aged 12, and he enjoyed much more popularity in court than his younger brother. The effects of living in his brother?s shadow from an early age gave Charles inadequate training as a public speaker, and ruling alone with only a handful of advisors to guide him would have seemed logical for such a private man. ...read more.


officers who had seized the property of one of their members for not paying tonnage and poundage, a tax the king believed he had right to claim from his wealthy citizens without the consent of Parliament. Although Charles was desperate to fund his expensive foreign commitments such as the payment of £30,000 monthly to Denmark as part of an anti-Hapsburg alliance, he was in direct violation of the ‘Petition of Right’ that he had only recently, in 1628, agreed with Parliament. The petition stated that no one should be forced to make a loan or pay tax without the consent of Parliament. ...read more.


The kind ordered the arrest of those involved and nine MPs were imprisoned. This was to be the start of Charles? eleven-year personal rule. Overall, Parliament?s actions although merely attempting to keep check on the King, infuriated Charles as he believed they directly attacked his right to absolute rule. Ultimately the decision of personal rule was solely the King?s decision and that makes him responsible for the following eleven years without a session of Parliament. The Commons may not have always acted in the King?s favour, but they were understandably cautious in their aiding of the King, especially considering his reliance on calling Parliament solely to be granted extra subsidies. ...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 responsible for his execution?

    Therefore, judging by the nature of Charles' policies, Parliament might have felt he was abusing his position and therefore abusing God's trust. Also it is evident that Charles' behaviour at his trial, which could be argued as one of the main elements leading to his execution, was heavily influenced by his belief in Divine Right.

  2. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    Buckingham first cam under the scrutiny of parliament in the 1625 session. In this session, Charles went against president and asked parliament for more subsidies than the two is offered. Parliament grew frustrated with Charles' calls for money when they 'know yet of no war nor of any enemy'.

  1. Why did Charles I decide to dissolve parliament in 1629?

    This may only be a minor factor, but was a major contribution emotionally in addition to Charles' already growing unhappiness with Parliament. Another key factor in the long list in why Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629 was Parliament's fears of the King's support of Arminianism and Charles' fears of Puritan MPs.

  2. Why was there a breakdown in relationship between king and parliament in 1629?

    He was well associated with the failure of the Spanish marriages and consequently the war that was to lead from it and the failure of the land attack on the Spanish mainland. Buckingham's close relationship to the king was seen as being bad for the country as Buckingham was already

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

    This enabled him to commission great works of art by Rubens and Van Dyck, and also to build up the Royal Navy for England's defence. But without Parliament to grant legal taxes, Charles was obliged to raise income by obscure and highly unpopular means including forced loans, the sale of commercial monopolies and, most notoriously of all, ship money.

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

    Charles realised that England's obsession with an archaic system of rule was no longer appropriate and the system needed to be overhauled for the country's own good. Uniformity was the only way to do this. The problem was that people did not know what this would result in.

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

    As was proved, the King's isolation gave the Duke of Buckingham an enormous amount of power because he acted like a sieve, controlling information from and to the King. As already mentioned, Charles was unwilling to compromise, and this extended to even small issues (such as the fine details of the Petition of Right, to be discussed later).

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

    When James died in 1625 his son Charles came to the throne and within four years of coming to power the relationship between King and Parliament broke down leaving Charles to rule by himself for eleven years. Not calling Parliament was not an unusual thing; it was part of the

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