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

How far were the aims and methods of Charles I's Personal rule justifiable? (1629-40)

Extracts from this document...


How far were the aims and methods of Charles I's Personal rule justifiable? (1629-40) The word justifiable is defined as 'showing to be right or reasonable', in short to justify oneself to another. However Charles, being King and God's representative on earth by divine right is not answerable to anyone, therefore he need not justify his actions. Putting this aside, Charles did not enter the period of personal rule in the right frame of mind, it hadn't been planned so his aims were born out of anger and frustration as well as a will to survive without Parliament's help. Most of Charles' main aims were good in theory; firstly and most importantly he resolved never to call Parliament again, he needed to sort out his own and the country's finance and in doing this kept an inexpensive foreign policy, finally he wanted to bring about a greater uniformity in between England and Scotland including religion. However, often Charles' methods and choice of personnel involved in achieving his goals were less helpful. After Elliot's three resolutions Charles was so furious that he dissolved Parliament and proceeded to rule without their assistance for eleven years. ...read more.


The re-introduction of old laws such as these could not be completely justified, however it was deemed necessary by Charles and his advisors in order for the country to be governed appropriately and for the monarchy to survive. It was technically legal although the damage he was doing to his relationship with the upper class was irreversible. The middle lower and working class were also hit hard by Charles' need for money. The most controversial of these taxes was the collection of ship money from inland areas as well as coastal towns, it also became an annual tax whereas it had usually only been collected during times of war. John Hapton tried a test case, he lost when it was said "Defence is a matter for all and should be paid by all." However there was popular support for him showing that the people thought Charles was being unreasonable and his actions unjustifiable, despite it being legal. To add to this monopolies were placed on products such as salt, which was of uttermost importance in order to keep meats fresh. This combined with the already spiralling high prices due to increased population and poor agriculture led to bad blood between the people and their king. ...read more.


Fortunately Charles didn't take this advice, which would have caused outcry in England. Wentworth was later used as a scapegoat by parliament and executed in 1941. In my opinion Charles was far from being justified in attempting to bring about changes in the Scottish Church particularly as it took him over five years to find the time for his coronation. In truth some of Charles' aims were justifiable despite them being made out of anger, however some were just selfish and had a lot to do with pride. He was King and wanted to show Parliament that he didn't need their help to govern his kingdom. Charles in fact did set out with the best of intentions unfortunately he had neither the know how, nor the leadership to devise the best methods in which to achieve his goals. He was also a bad judge of character and continually surrounded himself with incompetent and stubborn advisors such as Laud and Wentworth. Although the people thought Charles to be unjustifiable in his actions he was indeed king and therefore he had the power and authority to do what he thought best in the interests of his country. To conclude, in my opinion Charles did not need to justify himself to the people or even parliament only to himself. ...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?

    The King's speeches to Parliament lacked conviction, largely due to a constant stutter that he had possessed since birth. At a time when mastery of oral communication was seen as a sign of prestige, this speech impediment affected him in many ways, and would have contributed to his lack of confidence.

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

    Eventually parliament ordered the 'Petition of rights' to be written up. This was presented to the king and said that unless he respected magna carter and stopped imprisoning people without trial than he would not be allowed any more subsidies from parliament.

  1. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    the fear that the country would go the way of Spain and become a Catholic absolutist state. Charles possible support for Catholics went further than family but his close links with Armenians did little to cut the tension. Charles gave a number of key roles to Armenians.

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

    in the initial trial were suppressed using these scapegoats.50 By blaming others they hoped to please Charles just as they had pleased the English with Joan's conviction.51 Although the Church's intentions to please the monarchy, they continued their attempt at reclaiming dominance.

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

    He angrily dismissed his fourth Parliament in 1629 and declared his intention of ruling alone. This eleven-year period of the King's "Personal Rule" was known as the "Eleven Years Tyranny" to his opponents. Charles thought it was time the nation was brought to order.

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

    While the accounts of the period are valid in that they accurately reflect the dissent concerning the King's reforms most notably concerning religion, the fact that the evidence is biased against the King makes them questionable in answering the question was Charles trying to achieve Royal absolutism.

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

    as the introduction of ship money tax; this was a peacetime tax which required all port towns to build or turn over a set amount of ships to the King's navy whenever the King need them, Charles however manipulated this law and instead of ordering port towns to produce ships

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

    Unlike James, Charles lacked diplomacy and confidence, so relied to heavily on Buckingham, he didn't plan thoroughly enough before doing something and didn't pay much attention to detail, instead rushing in. Also Charles was not in favour with his people because of the visit he and his father's advisor Buckingham

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