It could also be argued, that yes, Foreign Policy was the most significant factor in the breaking down of the relationship. Charles’ new plain was to invade Cadiz, in Spain, and capture the gold fleet and port that is harboured. The reason why it was risky was because he made Parliament fund it due his belief in his own divine right, but he failed to mention what type of thing that they would be financing. The whole attack was a failure and reflected badly on Charles, especially due to the vast amount of men lost being more “to local Spanish win and starvation than enemy gunfire” which insinuated that Charles had bad control over the army and couldn’t rally together a team to work, or equip them correctly for that matter. In an attempt to turn the situation and save his reputation Charles decided to lay the blame of Parliament for not supplying him with a large enough sum of money to be successful. Therefore, by turning against them and placing an accusation, made the already fragile relationship between the two even more strained and difficult.
Another factor is the case of the Five Knights that brought into light Charles’ backhand tactics. Five Knights refused to pay the sum for the forced loan, as they were concerned that its success would lead to a dissolving of Parliament. As a result of this, Charles was very angry and had them imprisoned. It was then that ‘habeas corpus’ the right to be tried/ set free was realised and they were allowed a trial. At this point, Charles makes a deal with the judge to call an interim ruling, meaning the outcome is in his favour. However, this would only be special to this particular scenario and Charles was aware another case may appear and has this rule changed into one that applied to any similar situation; from a rule of court to a firm precedent. This would never have been found out were it not for Buckingham who broadcast the fact that Charles had manipulated the courts which as a consequence allowed for further distrust towards Charles as his underhand ways were highlighted to everyone and proving he could manipulate the system in an unfair and unjust way.
In addition, the pairing of the Petition of Right and the Three Resolutions, something, which Parliament felt they had to enforce in an attempt to control Charles. The Petition of Right came about due to the failed Bill of Rights, by Seldom and Elliot- extreme Parliamentary members. However, it was seen as a damning upon the king and so was rewritten and made more conservative so that Charles would actually agree and have it passed. It contained 4 grievances that Charles had to oblige by; not to raise taxes or to billet troops without the permission of Parliament, not to impose law on civilians and finally not to imprison people without probably cause. The latter only included to disabled an event such as the Five Knights case from reoccurring. Unfortunately, in due time, the Petition of Right also fell through as it failed to mention two fundamental issues on which Parliament and Charles strongly disagreed upon, these being the collection of tonnage and poundage (customs duty) and Charles’ open favour of anti-Calvinists. As well as this, the legality of the Petition of Right was under question because of Charles’ defacing of the statue using a pumice stone, again giving evidence of his “underhand dealings” (Smith) and causing Parliament to feel more distrust towards him. Restrictions of his power were then seen as more of a necessity, hence the Three Resolutions. They felt the need to make these laws due to the fact that Charles was so unwilling to compromise, even when many other moderates would have preferred that approach. So, on March 2nd 1629, Charles’ House of Commons representative was forcibly held back and prevented from reading the Royal Order until the Three Resolutions had been passed with the support of parliamentary members. In it, it expressed opposition the continued collection of tonnage and poundage without the approval and Parliament and a strong opposed opinion to Armianism. Although the passing of the Three Resolutions was successful, Charles then made the decision two days later to dissolve Parliament.
The issue of Finance also was a major contributor towards the breakdown of the relationship between the kind and Parliament. It also proves that there was an issue of trust, as at the beginning of his reign, Charles was only granted to the collection for one year where as usually is it given for the entire lifetime of the monarch. Despite this order being put in to place, Charles ignored it and even after his allocated year, remained collection ad he felt it was “an infringement of [his] consent” (Smith). It has also been noted as “a breach of the fundamental liberties of this kingdom” (member of the Commons). Parliament intended it to reform and review taxes which would give them greater control, but when Charles ignored his given restrictions it showed that he would go against what he was told even when he was not supposed to, showing him to be the one in control, which was the beginning of the trust problem. In 1926, the lacking of Parliamentary backing Charles lead to benevolence (a voluntary payment on the king’s prerogative). For obvious reasons, many refused to pay this so Charles created the Forced Loan, equal amount to five subsidies, and any who didn’t pay up was seen actively and openly opposing the king and Cust described it as “ a test of political loyalty”. Charles put this into action as he had no Parliamentary financial support and a war with Spain and France was strongly under threat.
In conclusion, I do not think that Foreign policy solely on its own was to blame for the breakdown of relationship between Crown and Parliament as that, as a factor on its own, doesn’t constitute a relationship breakdown. However, if combined with the others, it would create a lot of distrust towards Charles and his disloyalty would only fuel this, which would then result in the final breakdown of the relationship. The one key factor that seems to stem the others, would he his personality. Charles was well known for being arrogant, believing in his own self-righteousness and acting without explanation, mainly because of his inferiority complex produced by his stammer. As king, it lead him to be paranoid over critiques and possible opposition that can act as almost a justification for his actions and own style of rule. It is also probable that did he not have these character flaws, he would have refrained from acting as he did and the relationship would have been pleasant and it would not have suffered a breakdown as a direct result.