What we know of history is largely centred around the opinions of the literate gentry and nobility rather than the opinions of common man. So when considering whether Charles was trying to create Royal absolutism, the bias of the gentry and nobility must be taken into account. Laud made many enemies among these classes in much the same way as Wentworth (to be discussed) did. A “self-made man”, Laud showed little respect towards rank and authority. The Church’s Court of High Commission, its powers strengthened, did not make any social distinctions when prosecuting defendants under Laud’s guidance. Landowners could see their possessions of tithes and control over advowsons in jeopardy. While the accounts of the period are valid in that they accurately reflect the dissent concerning the King’s reforms most notably concerning religion, the fact that the evidence is biased against the King makes them questionable in answering the question was Charles trying to achieve Royal absolutism.
The King’s religious beliefs were probably not evidence of any intent on the King’s part for the creation Royal absolutism. Perhaps, given the choice, Charles would have created a Catholic state. But Catholicism is not the same as absolutism. It was true that much of Catholic Europe had turned to Royal absolutism, most notably in France. It was also true that this was a result of increasing pressure of reform from parliamentarians. But Charles realised that Catholicism was impossible in the current political situation. The proportion of Catholics in England was no more than 2%. Also, many people were fairly anti-Charles: few were avid supporters. It is also doubtful whether Charles, a poor communicator, could persuade more to join him, particularly as he could not afford to give them financial incentives.
As already discussed, Charles was trying to create uniformity in England. This was a good aim for many reasons, including the immediate danger of Catholic Europe, which under unification (at least compared to England) was far more powerful than England in all areas. If Charles managed to solve the problem of the lack of unity in religion, England would be unquestionably brought out of the Medieval attitudes and in line with France and Spain (as it did in the later part of the century). As in most other of Charles’ reforms, people were extremely wary to the uniformity idea, religion in particular. The problem of religion, and in fact all of the other reforms that Charles attempted to introduced, was that the King’s underlying aim was not at all clear. Charles realised that England’s obsession with an archaic system of rule was no longer appropriate and the system needed to be overhauled for the country’s own good. Uniformity was the only way to do this. The problem was that people did not know what this would result in. Having seen what had happened on the Continent, and without the benefit of modern democratic philosophy, the creation of Royal absolutism was the most obvious way to solve the problem.
It is probable that Charles was not trying to create Royal absolutism but uniformity alone, but did not realise the problems that he would encounter. Theoretically, uniformity could possibly only be achieved in seventeenth-century countries through Royal absolutism. From around the eighteenth century onwards, new systems of rule could work in harmony with uniformity, but not in the seventeenth-century, because political thought had not developed sufficiently yet. Although other issues were important, the most important would be religion: this was the key to unification. Uniformity could only be achieved by silencing the dissenting voices, e.g. Puritans. The Act of Uniformity of 1559 was an attempt to unite the country religiously without resorting to extraordinary oppressive measures, but, by the 1620s, it was clear the system wasn’t working. The English system was quite oppressive, but not enough for universalization. Throughout the 1630s, as the King moved England further towards Arminianism and unification, he came under increasingly intense criticism (that would be a cause for the eventual civil war). 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 English people in different regions there would always be people not willing to conform to the Establishment’s religious alignment. Because England was divided religiously more by region rather than household, e.g. Lancashire was particularly Catholic, Charles could not have persuaded the local government to impose religious uniformity in that area under a non-absolutist system. So there would always be regions or even individual households not willing to conform to the Church of England doctrine in action at the time, and this is definitely not uniformity. It’s also worth bearing in mind that having some people believing in a different Christian interpretation offers an alternative to those who would otherwise follow the mainstream denomination. This gives the people in general ideas and they will probably realise that an amount of religious and probably other freedom that the King doesn’t want is available and, if that is the case, uniformity could never be achieved. Absolutism is therefore necessary as a way of achieving this. Perhaps England needed “a kick in the backside” to bring it out of the Medieval Age and into a more modern line of thinking, and this could only be done by using an extreme, in this case Royal absolutism. When absolutism was well-established and uniformity achieved, the government could begin to relax the system gradually, using the absolutist, uniformed system as a strong building block in which to build (eventually) a modern state.
So eventually Charles would realise that uniformity could not be achieved through the current system and would have been left no choice but to move towards absolutism. This was not his original intention but probably inevitable. Charles cannot be blamed for not appreciating the impossibility of creating uniformity because he did not have the overview of history that we do.
Many of the problems of the 1630s lie with the King himself. His personality was ill-suited to a time of change and turmoil. Many of his personality traits lead him to be a poor communicator. This was for several reasons. Firstly, he was insecure and his stammer made him reluctant to speak in public and communicate his ideas to Parliament (before it was dissolved in 1629). Throughout his reign, the King needed to be in the presence of a trusted adviser, otherwise he would appear ill at ease. Before his assassination, this was the Duke of Buckingham. After the dissolving of Parliament, this was the Queen, Henrietta Maria, who the King fell in love with during that time. The Queen’s influence was considerable, although to what extent is unclear. There is evidence that Charles took a number of decisions against the Queen’s wishes. What was dangerous was the fact that the Queen, having come to England from absolutist France, was exposing the King to some pro-Royal absolutism ideas. Apart from Catholicism, this included a willingness to remain very isolated from the country. This was one of the major reasons why the contemporaries thought that Charles was trying to establish Royal absolutism; all too often, Charles’ policies got distorted and interpreted as another move along the way to absolutism. This was particularly the case as communication was so poor and the information so often got distorted. This was particularly a problem because of the fact that many of the counties that had very different political and religious views from the King were those furthest from London. So when information complete with anti-absolutist spin arrived, it simply reinforced those counties’ anti-monarchy stance.
Central to the King’s isolationist style of rule and his complete inability to accept any difference of opinion on his decisions was his belief in his Divine Right of Kings. This was a very dangerous idea and this was realised by the contemporaries. In theory, it meant the King could do what he liked, even if it was a complete breach of a subject’s liberties. The divinity of kingship would seem to suggest that parliament is not necessary, certainly a parliament that is anything more than a rubber stamp for the king’s decisions. So Charles’ style of rule was very absolutist in style, and this made people very concerned.
Another problem was in the nature of the Caroline court. It was very formal, with the King having a semi-divine status. Unfortunately, the formality restricted the court’s contact with the King’s subjects.
The Caroline court was a centre for culture. As part of this, court masques were shown in which both the King and the Queen acted in them, playing parts of divine characters. This was taken by some puritans as the King underlining Royal authority, but this is weak evidence in answering this question.
As already mentioned, England had a desperately archaic system of government. This was particularly evident in the King’s finances. The financial demands of the seventeenth century were more than those of previous centuries, particularly militarily. This meant that Charles was struggling to make ends meet as it was, let alone instigate an active foreign policy as he had foolishly tried to do in the 1620s without success. A completely overhaul of the financial system was needed, but any decisions like that would have to be made by Parliament, which had been dissolved. To get round this problem, the King attempted to manipulate existing rules concerning under what conditions he could collect money. He also assigned some of his advisers to search for the “King’s Mines”: money that had belonged to the Crown in the distance past and had not been written out of the constitution.
Many of the schemes that the King implemented were unquestionably legal. However, even these caused widespread resentment. This was because these rights were often abused to an extent. For instance, wardship was put into action when a landowner died and the heir had not come of age and so the Crown looked after the property. This was manipulated by the Monarchy because the property would often be given to the heir in a terrible condition because the Crown had failed to look after it and even sometimes it was stripped of all items of value. The people were very suspicious of the King because he was acting without Parliament. Parliament was seen as a way of keeping the King in check. It was the nearest thing that the common people had to a voice in the running of the country. Because it was the protector of the basic rights of the subjects and the King had decided to do without it, this seemed to confirm to the people that Charles intended to violate these rights.
Many of Charles’ more controversial schemes to make money were perhaps going too far. For example, Charles ordered that all men owning estates worth more than £40 a year should present themselves at his coronation for knighthood. Many people failed to do this as they were not able to get to London in time and this was a basis for fines. Perhaps the most controversial scheme was Ship Money. Previously, the Ship Money tax had only been raised on an ad hoc basis: when the country was in peril from foreign powers and needed a strong navy to defend her shores. Also, only costal counties had to pay it. Charles altered the tax so that it would be paid annually and by inland counties. This was an enormous risk because there was no precedent for it in English history. Eventually, the scheme backfired to an extent in 1637 in the famous Ship Money Trial.
The new changed Ship Money tax innovated. The English were very anti-innovation in the early seventeenth-century. This was because of the general consensus in the country at the time and also because people were very concerned about such aggressive innovations that could eventually lead to Royal absolutism. But saying that Ship Money was a step along the way to absolutist rule would be unjustified. As already discussed, England was backward and poor compared to other European countries. Threat of invasion from France or Spain never seemed too far away. Charles also needed to unite the country and one way of doing this was to make the country richer. As the sovereign, it was his primary job to safeguard the country and continue its growth. Charles can therefore not be blamed for thinking up new ways to ensure this, even if they were controversial. At the start of his reign, foreign ships had stopped observing the Dominion of the Seas when they saw an English warship when travelling up the Channel, and this was humiliating for England. All revenue raised from Ship Money was spent on the navy, and fine and powerful ships could be built such as the Sovereign of the Seas. In doing this, Charles managed to regain some of the country’s lost pride at its military. There was no evidence that the money was been used for other corrupt purposes, although the fact that many of the ships built with the tax were used to escort trade ships belonging to Catholic Spain up the Channel added to the criticism.
Many of the problems Charles faced in his Personal Rule were down to the inefficiencies of local government. This was because it relied on unpaid Royal officials to make the system work. If, for example, these officials did not like a particular bill the King was trying to introduce, they could do much to collectively undermine the application of this bill. The Justices of the Peace (JPs) were the main element of local government in the Seventeenth Century. Charles often placed them in a difficult position where they were torn between their loyalty to the King and their responsibility to their peers. Central control of local government was limited because JPs could not directly be removed from the bench, although the Privy Council could recommend a dismissal.
Charles used his power to demand tax or payment to the limit as has already been discussed. He used a similar approach towards his Courts. Laud used the Court of High Commission to demand uniformity in Church practises. Charles used his Court of Star Chamber to demand justice in cases like conspiracy, riot or perjury. These cases would be removed from the normal courts. The Court of Star Chamber was so controversial because trials were held in secret and the observation of the subject’s basic rights could not be ensured. However, this was not an absolutist court because its powers were limited somewhat; for instance, it could not sentence someone to death.
There were other aspects of the Personal Rule that Charles’ opponents did not like. Thomas Wentworth and his rule in Ireland was one of the most important. Wentworth, who had ironically been one of Charles’ chief opponents in the 1620s, had switched sides and had built up a reputation of fair-handed, authoritarian rule as Lord President of the Council of the North. He was quickly promoted to Lord Deputy of Ireland. His rule there was very absolutist in style. In Ireland, there were three groups: the native Catholic Irish, the Anglo-Irish (Catholic descendants of medieval English settlers) and the New English (English Protestants who had settled during the rule of James I). Rather than ally himself with one group as was customary due to the complexities of Irish politics, Wentworth decided to treat them all equally and be equally authoritarian towards all of them. This made him many enemies both in Ireland and back in England. He used the Dublin court as a Prerogative Court. For instance, he got five subsidies out of it without a redress of grievances as would have had to being done in England. He managed to restrict his opponents; for instance, he forced the Earl of Cork to restore alienated land to the Church. This further added to the criticism against him and it is also an important absolutist principle.
Wentworth’s rule in Ireland was seen by many as a blueprint for Royal absolutism in England. Perhaps it was, but there is evidence to suggest that Charles did not view it this way. He did not like Wentworth particularly and there were no signs that he tried to apply any of Wentworth’s methods to England. But there was no doubt that, under Wentworth, Ireland became a benefit to England; the country was transformed from a divided, inefficient country, to an efficient, profitable one. Wentworth did have some dangerous ideas: for instance, he believed that authoritarian rule was good for the people and that “the welfare of the realm is the supreme law”. Religiously, there were some problems too. Wentworth’s refusal to discriminate against the Catholic majority angered many Puritans. He also created a large Irish army, largely made up of Catholics. Having a large Catholic army in Ireland was taken as a grave threat by many English Protestants. However, in a time when England and the Commonwealth was under threat from foreign powers, a powerful military was needed. This was particularly the case as the population of France for instance was five times more than England and so could support a much larger army. England therefore needed to find a way to bolster the size of its army and harnessing the Irish was one way of doing this.
Although Wentworth set about creating absolutist rule, his motivations of imposing order in Ireland were more of furthering his political career (few ambitious men ever recovered from the posting of Lord Deputy of Ireland – it was the graveyard of political careers) rather than the start of turning the Commonwealth to Royal absolutism.
Laud and Wentworth were key orchestrators of a policy called “Thorough”. The essence of this was accountability. Charles’ problems, they concluded, sprung from the fact that he was poorly served. If the existing structures of government and Church could be made to work better, the King could work in harmony with his subjects. Apart from the general inefficiencies, the system was failing because the King’s messages weren’t getting to his subjects well. If the government looked into the actions of officials closely, it could ensure that these problems would disappear. This is a policy that served Wentworth well in Ireland. A part of this was the Book of Orders, which spelt out clearly how officials should behave, particularly concerning JPs. Another part of Thorough was a complete reform of the militia. Special commissioners appointed centrally would make sure that these reforms were being implemented.
Fundamentally, Thorough was about centralising government using a variety of methods. Centralising government was seen as a move towards Royal absolutism and removing the freedom of the existing system (another feature of absolutism). This was particularly the case as it would give a lot more power to the King’s Privy Council and not a more independent body such as Parliament. However, it was more a move to unite the country as Charles aimed to do, not an attempt to create absolutism. It was about making the country run more effectively but within the existing structure. Despite some absolutist traits, the King cannot be blamed for responding to the problems he had governing the country at the time.
In conclusion, it is easy to take the evidence at face value as contemporaries did and accuse Charles of trying to create Royal absolutism. However, this was probably not the case as Charles’ aims were more about turning England into a powerful country by creating uniformity than creating absolutism. This is not to say that the Personal Rule would have not resulted in absolutism, but it was not Charles’ original intention. His new initiatives were undermined by deep suspicion of him working without Parliament and also poor communication, particularly to rural areas. He may have been trying to change the Church of England into an Arminian High church but this was probably not directly linked to the creation of Royal absolutism. In a time when England was threatened by superior overseas powers, Charles needed to make England more stable and powerful, and this is the reason for many of his schemes, particularly financially.
