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

How Well Did Charles Get On With His Parliaments Up To 1629?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How Well Did Charles Get On With His Parliaments Up To 1629? From the start of his rule, it was quite obvious that relations with Parliament were going to be less than cooperative at the best of times, as Charles was a firm believer in his royal prerogative, while Parliament thought that he was arrogant, demanding and irrational in the way he would not listen to the views suggested by Parliament, which is all outlined in this essay. The first Parliament of Charles' reign met in June 1625, and was solely summoned by Charles to provide money for the costly was with Spain. Parliament acknowledged the request of the King, and voted for a double subsidy worth around �140,000, and confirmed that the Kind was right to collect both tonnage and poundage, which were the main sources of custom duties for one year. Parliament was cooperating with what the king wanted, but the sum of �140,000 was still inadequate to fund his foreign policy obligations, which would cost closer to �1 million. Parliament 's lack of generosity to aid the King was partially due to an unrealistic view of how expensive the war with Spain was, and also because they didn't trust the way Charles was handling foreign policy. The disagreement between the amount of money the King required and the amount that Parliament was willing to grant him meant that this was a bad start to relations between them. ...read more.

Middle

Many MPs from the recently dissolved Parliament refused to accept the legality of the collection of these duties, as they were arranged without Parliamentary consent. The forced loan by the King created uproar throughout the nation, which culminated in the 'Five Knights Case' in which five men refused to give the King the money he required, and challenged the King's right to imprison them. These men were eventually imprisoned by judges who were upholding the King's royal prerogative. Even though Parliament wasn't in session, the extra-parliamentary collection of duties from the nation caused further friction between the Crown and Parliament, whose relationship seemed to be rapidly diverging from being compliant with one another. The relationship between Charles and Parliament up to now had been very rocky, partially due to the fact the Parliament was a little na�ve about just how expensive the war with Spain would be, and was unwilling to grant the King money, as they didn't support his choice of advisors (especially Buckingham), or his foreign policy with other European countries. Buckingham's exploits may have been the match that ignited the tension between Charles and Parliament, as he had made several blunders on his various trips to the continent including his negotiation of a marriage between Henrietta Maria (the sister of the French King), promising her that she could carry on practicing Catholicism. ...read more.

Conclusion

Parliament's trust in the King declined, and their period of cooperation began to rapidly crumble. In Court, strenuous attacks were made of Arminianism and the collection of taxation, which the King solved by dissolving Parliament for a third time. The Lords complied with their dissolvement, but the Commons were not as compliant. Two MPs (Holles and Valentine0 along with Sir John Eliot were tried and imprisoned after attacking both Arminianism and extra-parliamentary taxation. As a result, Charles dispensed with Parliament's services for the near future. He thought that the problems he had encountered with Parliament were due to a small group of troublemakers who had corrupted their fellow MPs to their viewpoint. In conclusion I can say that Charles' relations with his Parliaments up to 1629 were very uncooperative, as it was dissolved thrice for many reasons, but twice in order to protect his favourite, the Duke of Buckingham. Parliament disliked Buckingham, and the King's appointment of Richard Montague as royal chaplain, and his Arminian views, while Charles disliked the way Parliament openly attacked both his Arminian views and Buckingham. The one period of cooperation between the two sides was the 'Petition of Rights' in which the King assented Parliament's requests and Parliament granted the King five subsidies, however that period of cooperation was short lasted and eventually ended with Parliament being dissolved. Generally the King's relations with Parliament until 1629 were uncooperative, and sometimes a little vicious in the way each would attack the others viewpoints, and question one another's rights. Pratik Vats 12 N/A ...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?

    dying bread, and the English Puritans wanted to stop this happening to them. Royal finance was the source of many of the disputes that lead to the dissolving of Parliament in 1629. When Charles came to the throne in March 1625 he found the monarch bankrupt.

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

    This lack of thought and analysis of a delicate situation which he could of stepped down from or lowered his support suggests that his true objective and role as King was not met and only made situations worse for himself.

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

    They did not object to the payments that they were being made to pay but instead were mad at the way that Charles had gone about putting it into action. They believed that he should have used parliament to do it but instead he went behind them and did it himself and some would say this was illegal.

  2. Why Did Charles Dissolve Parliament in 1629?

    Charles was also very opinionated. He believed very strongly in the divine right of monarchs and that parliament was just there to grant him subsidies when he needed them. He also believed that actions spoke louder than words and that he didn't need to explain himself to a chamber full of 'commoners'.

  1. Why did Charles' relationship with Parliament deteriorate between 1625-1629? ...

    Charles demanded a forced loan; all gentry had to pay him a fixed amount of money or they would suffer the consequences of imprisonment or conscription into the army. Britain suffered greatly for its lack of a definite constitution. Specific rights and powers of the king were not established in

  2. "Conflict and Contest" or "Cooperation and consent," which phrase best sums up Elizabeth I's ...

    Therefore they argue that the relationship was one of "conflict and contest". Neale argued that the power of the House of Commons had increased throughout Elizabeth's reign. This is backed up by a number of events, including that the reign of Elizabeth did witness the culmination of a process where the gentry took over a proportion of Parliament.

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

    This shows that under a non-absolutist system, religious unity was impossible. It is true that part of the cause for the intense nature of the criticism was due to the nature of the unification that Charles was trying to create, but because of the wide-ranging religious views held by the

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

    area.23 He did not understand that a sovereign does not belong to himself and that he has no choice but to sacrifice himself and to place himself in the service of the kingdom.24 According to Anne Denieul-Cormier, Charles felt that the people of France were to serve him, rather than he being the servant to his people.

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