Essay Sample on the Personal Rule of Charles I

King Charles I faced many problems during his personal rule between 1629 to 1640, which ultimately led to his death. Financial problems may have been the leading cause to the Kings vanquishing, however other factors such as the Laudian church reforms, Scottish unrest, and puritan resistance could also prove to be leading causes for Charles’ failure of personal rule. 

Some historians may argue that financial problems were in fact the main reason for the failure of his personal rule. This is by the reason of, from the very beginning of Charles’ ascension to the throne he had faced an empty treasury and an unreliable source of income, that of which being parliament. These factors led to Charles resulting to legally dubious measures to ensure financial stability for himself, so that he could comfortably fund his government, as well as his lifestyle, and the many wars and conflicts he had gotten himself into without the support of parliament. One of these measures were the forced loans of 1626, this entailed Charles demanding his taxpayers to pay him, or if refused, they would be sent to prison or conscripted to the military promptly. The public were not supportive of this tax, finding it unjust and without valid reason for implementation. Lord Chief Justice Ranulph Carew was sighted to have refused to endorse this tax and was subsequently dismissed by Charles. This tax created even more tension between parliament and the King, as well as straining the relationship between Charles and the public, therefore becoming a significant factor towards to dissolvement of Charles I’s personal rule. Additionally, the ship money tax was another way for Charles to try to generate some form of income for his expenses. In 1635 Charles extended the tax to be implemented regularly, and not just on coastal counties but on in-land counties as well. Although his actions were on the supposed grounds of the Kingdoms benefit from a strong navy, this financial venture (which generated him approx. 200,000 pounds) received even more vexation from both parliament and the public. His actions were so unpopular that in the legal dispute between John Hampden and the Crown, the King won a pyrrhic victory of 5-7 in court. This shows the significance of Charles’ financial problems and what effect it had on his personal rule and authority as King, people began to question his right to simply take from the public even if he had the Divine right of Kings. Conclusively, the final and most significant point of Charles’ financial ruin was his military campaign in 1639. His financial problems meant that he could not fund his war against the Calvinist Scottish, who were furious with their King for trying to implement his own religious beliefs and desires for unity and order across all three countries. Charles was swiftly defeated and had no choice but to sign the treaty of Berwick. This embarrassing defeat further suggests that financial complications were Charles’ biggest reason for the failure of his personal rule because he could not even defend his authority as King from opposition. Without funding, he could not fight in wars, pay for his government, or keep his dignity as King. Ultimately, these financial disputes contributed to his opposition growing substantially over the course of his personal rule, which ended his personal rule. 

However, other historians may be inclined to believe that the Laudian church reforms (1629-36) were the main reason for the failure of King Charles’ personal rule. After the King had promoted a ‘high church’ Arminian, William Laud, as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, Laud made haste in instructing Anglican churches to rail off the communion table at the east end of the church. This choice in the re positioning of the communion table was disliked by the puritans at best, this lay out of the church mimicked that of a Catholic church in practise. Not only this, but the puritans also believed that this change encouraged the worship of the altar, which is forbidden in the ten commandments. With this change resembling that of a Catholic church, Laud became disliked by the vast majority of Englishmen. Many churches even refused to follow Lauds instructions, risking excommunication from the church. This puts an emphasis on how Charles desired order and obedience from his people, anyone who had a wish to go against him and Lauds choices would be excommunicated, which proved to only grow tensions between his people and the Crown. The relationship between the Crown and its people was vital for a King to be able to rule over his people, puritans began to grow more worrisome about Charles’ sympathetic nature towards Catholicism, which was first questioned when he married Henrietta Maria, a known Catholic Princess. This violation of the puritan religion later led to opposing groups growing in secret to speak out against the King, having a tumbling effect over time, leading to the forced end of Charles’ personal rule. 

On the contrary, it is possible that Charles’ war with the Scottish army may have led to the downfall of his personal rule. In fact, many regard the Scottish war as the catalyst to the end of Charles’ personal rule over the United Kingdom. This is due to the first introduction of the common book of prayer in Scotland, which Charles’ proceeded with so that he could unite all three of his countries under one religion, that being practises associated with high church Protestantism. He sought to do this because of his desire for a strong nation which whole heartedly obeyed their King and did not question his authority. However, he failed to achieve this, riots ensued in St. Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh where the book of common prayer was first read. This defiance in authority showed Charles’ lack of strength over the countries he ruled, he could not suppress or impose those who did not wish to follow his religion. Charles was already unpopular in Scotland due to being crowned King in England and only being crowned in Scotland approximately ten years later after he became King. Naturally, with opposition from the entire country of Scotland, Charles’ seat on the throne was being challenged, and his authority as King was wavering without help from parliament, and a weak army force. These factors lead to the first Bishops war of 1639, where due to his weak local militia and lack of financial support from parliament, he was subsequently defeated. This forced Charles to recall parliament after a decade of dissolvement, Charles was desperate for funding so that he could defeat the strong, Scottish Kirk and assert his authority as King. However, the short parliament failed to give him any financial support, instead wanting to discuss other matters to do with his status and personal rule, as well as what he has been doing over the last ten years. Proving to be unhelpful to him, Charles dissolved parliament after just three weeks of it being in session. Without support from his own parliament, and the Scottish army still being a problem, Charles was defeated once more in the second Bishops war. This series of humiliating defeats shows the significance of the Scottish wars on the Kings personal rule, unable to defend himself or lead a strong militia, Charles had to pay the Scottish army eight hundred and fifty pounds every day until he agreed to recall parliament once more. This had a profound effect on Charles’ personal rule due to the severe losses in support from the Scottish people and the further chagrin from English MP’s. It could be argued that this was the large scale reason for the end of the King’s personal rule, by virtue of this sequence of events giving parliament the incentive to oppose the King and his ungodly decisions in war, in addition to the ever growing puritan contention with the King’s ‘evil counsellors’ and ministers.  He, as King, was in question, whether his decisions were paramount, and there was no doubt that a loud voice was forming, advocating for the disbandment of the King’s personal rule. 

Moreover, the final, possible overruling reason for the failure of King Charles’ personal rule was the formation of the Puritan network in 1636. This conspicuous group of Puritan merchants, Lords, Gentry, and lawyers were all closely interconnected and tightly bound by secrecy as to not arouse suspicion of conspiracy. This network held many prominent figures such as John Pym, John Hampden, and Oliver Cromwell. Other centres of opposition arose around this time along side the Puritan network, most significantly including Oxford and Cambridge universities, commencing many political discussions about the Crown’s incompetence of personal rule. Those who openly spoke out against the King’s personal rule were expeditiously subjected to severe and cruel punishments.