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

How Successful was the Period of Personal Rule Between 1629-1637?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How Successful was the Period of Personal Rule Between 1629-1637? In 1629, Charles I dissolved parliament and embarked on an eleven year period of personal rule. The aims behind personal rule were to rule without calling parliament, to establish his financial independence, make peace in Europe and to enforce uniformity and order, particularly within the church. The first of these aims was certainly achieved. Charles used the prerogative courts (such as the Court of Star Chamber) as well as the regional courts (such as the Council of the North) to enforce the powers of the royal prerogative and punish offenders. He also relied on his privy council to investigate aspects of the government and punish offenders. By governing without parliament, Charles faced less grievances and was able to rule single-handedly, which, due to his belief in divine right, suited him perfectly. In 1630-1631 Charles made peace with both France and Spain. Without parliaments funding, there was simply no way he could afford to continue to intervene in the Thirty Years war. Other advantages from ending the war can be found, such as increased trade which was beneficial to England's economy. Certainly a success of the period of personal rule between these years is the peace and tranquillity England found with foreign policy. ...read more.

Middle

Therefore what became known as the "perfect militia" was introduced. This meant that pressure was put on the Lord Left Lieutenants to collect the taxes that would finance the militia and organise meetings of those involved. Perhaps the most successful achievement of personal rule was that Charles managed to impose Laudian control over and the church and achieve stronger uniformity. Examples of this include moving the altar from the centre of the church towards the East where it was railed off from the congregation, removing the pews used by the gentry which were located at the front of the church and were more luxurious and made the church services more ceremonial. Laud also managed to raise the status of the clergy and prevented sermons being given by lecturers. This meant that what was preached in the church was more directly controlled by the King and Laud, therefore giving them more power to influence the people. However, there are also many counter-arguments to suggest that personal rule was not effective in achieving its aims. Although peace brought a relaxation in tensions between England and Europe, it also caused resentment within the country. Many people believed that England should have been supporting the Dutch and the fears of Catholicism were only heightened by the Spanish neutrality policy. ...read more.

Conclusion

Due to the Thirty Years War and previous events (such as Laud being offered a cardinal position by the Pope), many of the puritans in England were becoming unnerved. Decisions taken such as moving the altar and the shift in focus towards ritual and ceremony seemed to suggest a tendency towards Catholic Church traditions. This, combined with the King's marriage to Henrietta Maria (who was a practicing catholic), Charles's firm belief in divine right and Charles' persisting in surrounding himself with courtiers known to be sympathetic towards Catholicism (such as Gregorio Panzani) lead some people to the conclusion that Popish plots were being created. Durston suggests examples such as parishioners from Nottingham and Somerset being willing to risk serious punishment in order not to rail off their altars to show the resentment that the religious reforms met. Re-introducing the Book of Sports and the punishment of Burton, Basquick and Prynne were also resented. Overall, although it could be suggested that there was a build up of resentment in England during the period 1629-1637 due to issues such as ship money and the religious reformations, this period of personal rule was largely successful. Evidence for this is to be found in Charles managing to fulfil his aims of ruling without parliament, gaining financial independence and imposing uniform on religion in England. ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 ...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 reason was that it soon became clear that the new king had a number of Arminian sympathies. Arminianism was a very Catholic take on Protestantism. Members of Parliament became concerned with the rapid progress of this denomination. The key Arminian of the time was the later Archbishop William Laud,

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

    Beyond the Myth: The Story of Joan of Arc. New York: J.B. Lippincott, 1990. This book proved to be an excellent source on the study of Joan of Arc as it provided detailed information in addition to valuable insights into the human relationships and emotions involved with the main figures of the time.

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

    Two subsidies were granted to Charles by the first Parliament of quid 140,000, this was generous by Elizabethan standards but still inadequate by 1625. By the time the second Parliament was called in 1626 Charles and Buckingham's naval attack on Cadiz had failed miserably.

  2. INTER-WAR PERIOD

    The government's preparations were quickly put into effect and troops were called in to maintain supplies of food and run the power stations. The government standpoint was p and a 'revolutionary threat'. The government view was put across in the British Gazette; Churchill called the strike 'unconstitutional' and a 'revolutionary threat'.

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

    Charles was so successful in finance that he managed to balance the budget deficit by 1635 and then by 1637 he was making a profit of �1,000,000 per year. Charles had to deal with the problem of religion too during his personal rule.

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

    The problem was that Puritans and Calvinists who opposed the Arminian innovations had good reason to be concerned. Laud's changes were very Catholic in nature, including repositioning the altar so that staunch Puritans would say that the minister is blocking the route to God.

  1. Changes in Crime and Punishment.

    men wanting to fight in the war as they saw how awful the First World War was. The public attitudes towards the Conscientious Objectors remained constant over both the wars. They accused them of being cowards. They felt this because they did not see why their male relatives should go

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

    (Lewis, 2006, p. 81) It must be stressed at this point that the evidence shows us, that even though Unionists were in a minority in Ireland, and indeed within the nine counties of Ulster, Carson still manages to negotiate the possibility of concession on Home Rule.

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