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

How far would you support the view that 1637 marked the highpoint of Charles I personal rule?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far would you support the view that 1637 marked the highpoint of Charles I personal rule? Charles' personal rule started in 1629 after the second session of his third Parliament ended in arguments and disagreements between King and Parliament about the methods (tonnage and poundage) Charles used to generate personal income. Charles adjourned Parliament during this session and Parliament declared three resolutions that would force Charles into personal rule and isolation from Parliament and its wealth. Charles had to contend with a lot of problems in his personal rule. Most importantly was the issue of how to finance himself and the country without the availability of Parliament. Charles had only two ways to do this, first was to decrease the amount of expenditure, secondly was to generate more income. Charles set his sights on the current war with France and Spain and signed a peace accord with them; this increased profit margins as war with one nation was a heavy burden on finance let alone two. ...read more.

Middle

Laud was a strict Protestant that detested Puritan and Catholic ideologies within the kingdom and especially within the Anglican Church; he implemented a policy of religious reform that intended to cement the Church of England as the official and only church of the Kingdom: 1. All vacant positions for Bishop were to be replaced by a Bishop of Arminian denomination. 2. All parish churches and clergy were to follow newly introduced Canons which effected the interior of the church: a. Church was to be decorated; reintroduction of stained glass windows and ornaments. b. All parish clergy were to wear Catholic garb. c. Follow a reformed Arminian sermon. 3. All university education was to be Arminian centred. Charles also had to manage the problem of how he is going to rule his 3 Kingdoms and Principality, especially how he was going to implement his policies in the largely Gaelic speaking and Catholic Ireland. To aid him in this Charles placed Thomas Wentworth as Lord Deputy of Ireland, the ruling figure in Ireland under the King. ...read more.

Conclusion

Charles' kingdom was truly stable, prosperous and wealthy. Religion, finance and uniform rule were all reaching a positive equilibrium coming up to 1637 and it is indeed possible this could've continued if it wasn't for one important mistake. This was the forced introduction by Charles of the English Prayer Book in Scotland which although supported by Scottish Bishops, sparked off unrest, riot and violence in Scotland which led to the need for recalling of Parliament and to the beginnings of the English civil war. One could truly say that 1637 was the zenith of Charles' personal rule, even his rule as a whole. The necessity for Parliament after the riots in Scotland to finance the First Bishop's war meant that Parliament could pressure Charles into giving into their demands. On top of that, the First Bishop war was contagious and uncontrolled rage that shortly spread throughout the whole of the Kingdom and through Ireland and also parts of England. After 1637, Charles was now on a downhill struggle. The argument for the view that Charles I was at his zenith in 1637 cannot be denied easily. ...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 Charles indeed took it), Parliament may have had good reason for it. Because of the financial importance of Tonnage and Poundage, it was a pivotal issue. By the need for the King to prove he deserved it from year to year, Parliament was able to exercise restraint over the King.

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

    Although the source is not related to Joan of Arc, it provided useful information regarding to terminology relevant to the religious aspects during the fifteenth century. The terms are given in a factual manner without a historical interpretation. The original text version was published in 1911 with the supervision of the Archbishop of New York.

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

    Of course Laud refused (if he had excepted, there is no doubt that England would have been thrown into turmoil), but his refusal was not strongly enough worded; he said that he could not accept "Rome as it is". This seemed to suggest to many Puritans that Laud was intent

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

    Instead out of Charles' desperate struggle for money emerged a coercive underhand administration where technically legal policies were adopted. Charles may have thought these justifiable at the time, but unbeknown to him would later bring about his downfall as he bankrupted and frustrated many nobles and gentry whose support he would later need.

  1. Consider The Argument That “The Most Provocative Issue In Arousing Opposition to Charles 1 ...

    In the past, Puritans kept the communion table in the main body of the church; moving it to the chancel seemed like a move towards Catholicism. This caused a lot of angered and became known as the Altar Controversy. It caused opposition as people thought that it was a return to the ways of Roman Catholicism.

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

    After Balfour?s resignation on the 8th of November Andrew Bonar-Law became leader after the leadership contest. There was a stark difference between the two leaders, Balfour was an aristocratic, sharp debater, Bonar-Law was a successful businessman with little experience in the field of politics nor did he match Balfour on intellectual level.

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