• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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. 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. How far was Parliament more responsible than Charles for the breakdown of their relationship ...

    This was then carried forward and presented as a Bill in 1641, when it again caused a division of opinion among MPs. Using the Act of Attainder against Strafford was also controversial - several MPs felt that to condemn Strafford in such a way was equal to the much hated tactics he had used in the 1630s.

  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 responsible for his execution?

    He was tried and found guilty, but he was revered as a hero, in particular by Parliament. This is evident of a growing feeling of resentment towards the king's policies especially from Parliament. Also it showed a struggle of power already beginning between the King and Parliament, both wanted to

  1. 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'.

  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. How far & to what extent was Louis responsible for the turn of events ...

    From the end of June, events accelerated at a starting pace. Bread prices continued to rise, while of mass unemployment, and an atmosphere with troops imposing almost martial law caused a situation whereby thousands of workers would flood onto the streets with very little provocation. The provocation came from Louis.

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

    These steps when carried out were a failure on a large scale, which left Charles embarrassed. England landed itself in war with both Spain and France. Buckingham's decision to help the Huguenots, besieged by the French was horrendous.

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