Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How true is the view that the breakdown of Charles I's Personal Rule 1639-1640, was both sudden and unexpected? The end of the Personal Rule in 1640 saw the ending of 'Charles' Golden Years' or the '11 Years of Tyranny' depending on your viewpoint during that time. But was the ending of the Personal sudden or was it the culmination of years of tension between government and king? It could be argued that the end of the Personal Rule was inevitable; that it was always going to happen. To assess the view that the end of Personal Rule was unexpected, we have to accept that this means that the Personal Rule could have continued indefinitely. To many people and to Charles himself, the Personal Rule was a great success; it was a time in which it was relatively peaceful - Charles had made peace with Spain and France by 1630. ...read more.

Middle

In Scotland, people saw Arminianism as being dangerously close to Catholicism; a religion which was feared and hated. The introduction of the Prayer Book into Scotland signalled a huge threat to the security of their faith, and when it was first implemented, people would respond to readings of it by rioting and violence. It was a step too far and seemed to threaten their liberties - Charles was forcing them to change their beliefs, beliefs which were suspiciously close to Catholicism. The riots eventually developed into Charles being at war with Scotland, leading to the end of the Personal Rule. It could be argued that the reactions of the Scots was unexpected, meaning that the end of the Personal Rule was also sudden and unexpected. Before the Bishop Wars, Charles had been able to raise adequate revenue for himself through dubiously legal ways of collecting taxes; such as Ship Money, forced loans and knighthoods, or fining people for living within Royal grounds. ...read more.

Conclusion

From this, it could be seen that the ending was inevitable, as the king would eventually run out of money and would need to recall Parliament in order to obtain money. Charles' financial problems provide the conditions in which the ending of the Personal Rule could have happened, whilst the Bishop Wars provide the conditions in which the ending of the Personal Rule had to happen and why it happened at that time. In conclusion the actual ending of the Personal Rule could be seen as sudden and unexpected as no one had anticipated Scotland's strong reaction to the introduction of the Prayer book and the resulting Bishop Wars which led to its end. However the ending of the Personal Rule at all can be seen as inevitable, as it was to be expected that Charles would eventually need money to continue his rule and would have to recall Parliament. To summarise, the actual timing of its end was unexpected and sudden, but the fact that the Personal did end was not. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

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.