Why had the policies of Charles I and his ministers aroused so much opposition in England by 1640?
Why had the policies of Charles I and his ministers aroused so much opposition in England by 1640?
Charles I rein up to 1640 has created widespread and heated academic debate as to what caused, if any, opposition from public, church and government. Historians such as Barry Coward see events such as the personal rule, vast religious changes as well as pressures from governing three kingdoms as contributing to opposition towards the Caroline court. Others such as John Morrill take a more precise view that it was the religious changes alone that caused the worst opposition. This essay seeks to evaluate these numerous critiques on a volatile period of British history, in order to form some understanding as to why Charles I policies caused such widespread public dissatisfaction. In particular the personal rule, Laudianism and the kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland will be addressed amongst other areas in order to form a valid opinion on the issue in question.
William Laud’s promotion to Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the most controversial acts of Charles I rein and set the scene for much religious paranoia and ultimately conflict. The following changes Laud introduced, commonly known as Laudianism, created widespread rage amongst the population that was ignored in its entirety by Charles. Indeed the religious changes concocted by the Caroline court caused much aggravation in many other areas that could otherwise have been avoided, as will be discussed later. The ‘Popish plot to subvert England’s religious law’ was also felt across the other kingdoms of the island of Britain. The puritanical masses within the nation saw Laud’s changes as a return to Catholicism. The fact that the King was wed to a catholic, who had her own private church as well as Catholics in her court, did little to put minds at ease as to the religious direction of the country. As a result an undercurrent of resistance was formed, and continued to form as England came to odds with Scotland and Ireland over the issue of religion. Lauds attempts at religious conformity were an attempt at creating a united nation, united by religion. James VI/I had attempted to create balance in his kingdoms, yet Charles arrogance and refusal to compromise led to an extreme attempt at unity, forced and unnatural. This perception that religious conformity was to be force-fed was not accepted and strengthened opposition greatly, as well as the growing paranoia of a “Popish Plot”. England, having spent almost half a century under clear protestant rule, faced what was seen as a sneaky transition to an alignment with Rome.
One of the most enduring features of the period leading to 1640 was the personal rule of Charles I. Often cited as the “Eleven Years Tyranny” by Whig historians, recent revisionists have attempted to redress the universally accepted view of a tyrannical period of British History. Indeed, analysis of the period shows that one of Charles’s few tyrannical acts in the period was numerous religious reforms. Kishlansky suggests that far from being an attempt by Charles to rule almost as dictator, it was in fact a desire for peace and harmony in his kingdom, albeit unsuccessful in its execution. ‘Both sides were unprepared for any kind of rebellion’ or indeed civil war. However the outward compliance towards numerous changes and taxes often concealed inner anger that would later become apparent – Indeed John Morrill has termed this as the ‘Coiled Spring Effect’. The growing sense of distance between court and people was only heightened by the religious differences. For example payment of Ship money regularly exceeded 90 percent up to 1638, making the crown vast sums of money that the public felt were being used to create a safety net in the event of war. When it became clear that funds were to be used in a religious war in Scotland, payment of ship money became considerably more difficult to extract. The religious overtones of the personal rule created not a solid opposition, but a fractured and dismembered one. This created tension beneath the surface. The slow roasting over the 11 years ultimately ended in considerable outbursts across the kingdoms as paranoia over the Popish plot and religious change came to a tee as war was waged on Scotland. The personal rule caused opposition due to Charles continued attempts at forcible religious reform. The desire for peace and harmony failed because this perfect world was inconceivable to Charles unless Laudianist policies were in place across his domain. The importance of religion to the monarch seemed to be more important than his public – the privacy of his court along with its gradual alignment with catholic supporters led to growing feelings of unease between court and country. This social division only reiterated the religious differences between the majority and the king, the coil slowly began unravelling over a period of 11 years.
