Charles’ Policies throughout Personal Rule
Key: Essay Plan
Summary
‘The most important reason for Charles deciding to rule without Parliament were the events
of the 1629 session.’ How far do you agree?
Whilst the events of the 1629 session in parliament were important to Charles’ choice to
embark on a personal rule, it should be considered that these events were more so
cataclysmic and were simply a culmination of long term disparities between parliament and
Charles and it could be argued that Charles may have chosen to embark on a personal rule
without the events of 1629 parliament. The influence of Charles’ desire for financial
independence and the influence of Buckingham and his death should be considered, but
most importantly the influence that the ideological differences between Charles and
parliament had on all of these factors.
Para 1 -> 1629 session
The immediate event that culminated in Charles’ dissolution of parliament for the last time
over the next 11 years is the three resolutions; Charles was unhappy that these were passed
without his consent as Holles, Elliot and Digges held down the speaker and proclaimed
anybody collected or paid customs duties was an enemy of the state, and those accustomed
to popish inventions were too. This was an obvious attack on Charles’ financial and religious
policies ->had been prohibited and warned from collecting customs all the way back to 1625
parl. and in the petition of rights; attack on prerogative which was of the utmost importance
to Charles.
In addition, the parliament (1629) had continued to attack Charles for collecting customs
prior to the three resolutions. During the 1629 parl. Charles had also promoted a number of
arminians to high positions within the church due to a number of deaths amongst the
bishopry.
But, it should be evaluated that these were simply a culmination of grievances parliament
had held against Charles for a number of years -> petition of rights in 1628, attack of
Arminians in 1628 (Mainwaring), 1626 = York House Conference, parliamentary attack on
Montagu, discontent over Laud’s sermon to open parliament and therefore the explosive
outburst of the three resolutions should be evaluated as a catalyst towards Charles’ choice
to embark on personal rule, rather than a decisive factor. Parliament had consistently
attacked Charles based on the issues discussed in the 1629 parliament, whilst the three
resolutions were obviously important to Charles’ choice to embark on a personal rule it
should be a considered that this was viewed as a futile attempt to limit Charles’ prerogative
which he would not stand for; in addition to this it very obviously highlighted the ideological
difference between Charles and his parliament; it is obvious that Charles’ ideological
differences with parliament were more deep rooted and, rather than explicitly cause Charles
to embark on a personal rule, the events of the 1629 parliament simply solidified Charles’
recognition of irreconcilable ideological differences with parliament.
Para 2 -> Buckingham
One of the major factors in Charles and Parliament’s fraught relationship was Buckingham -
> dominated the privy council, e.g Arundel felt as though he was ignored over issues with
the Spanish in favour of Buckingham. It was also thought that Buckingham was an inept
Royal Admiral, (and this was exemplified by the failure in Cadiz that resulted in the loss of
Key: Essay Plan
Summary
‘The most important reason for Charles deciding to rule without Parliament were the events
of the 1629 session.’ How far do you agree?
Whilst the events of the 1629 session in parliament were important to Charles’ choice to
embark on a personal rule, it should be considered that these events were more so
cataclysmic and were simply a culmination of long term disparities between parliament and
Charles and it could be argued that Charles may have chosen to embark on a personal rule
without the events of 1629 parliament. The influence of Charles’ desire for financial
independence and the influence of Buckingham and his death should be considered, but
most importantly the influence that the ideological differences between Charles and
parliament had on all of these factors.
Para 1 -> 1629 session
The immediate event that culminated in Charles’ dissolution of parliament for the last time
over the next 11 years is the three resolutions; Charles was unhappy that these were passed
without his consent as Holles, Elliot and Digges held down the speaker and proclaimed
anybody collected or paid customs duties was an enemy of the state, and those accustomed
to popish inventions were too. This was an obvious attack on Charles’ financial and religious
policies ->had been prohibited and warned from collecting customs all the way back to 1625
parl. and in the petition of rights; attack on prerogative which was of the utmost importance
to Charles.
In addition, the parliament (1629) had continued to attack Charles for collecting customs
prior to the three resolutions. During the 1629 parl. Charles had also promoted a number of
arminians to high positions within the church due to a number of deaths amongst the
bishopry.
But, it should be evaluated that these were simply a culmination of grievances parliament
had held against Charles for a number of years -> petition of rights in 1628, attack of
Arminians in 1628 (Mainwaring), 1626 = York House Conference, parliamentary attack on
Montagu, discontent over Laud’s sermon to open parliament and therefore the explosive
outburst of the three resolutions should be evaluated as a catalyst towards Charles’ choice
to embark on personal rule, rather than a decisive factor. Parliament had consistently
attacked Charles based on the issues discussed in the 1629 parliament, whilst the three
resolutions were obviously important to Charles’ choice to embark on a personal rule it
should be a considered that this was viewed as a futile attempt to limit Charles’ prerogative
which he would not stand for; in addition to this it very obviously highlighted the ideological
difference between Charles and his parliament; it is obvious that Charles’ ideological
differences with parliament were more deep rooted and, rather than explicitly cause Charles
to embark on a personal rule, the events of the 1629 parliament simply solidified Charles’
recognition of irreconcilable ideological differences with parliament.
Para 2 -> Buckingham
One of the major factors in Charles and Parliament’s fraught relationship was Buckingham -
> dominated the privy council, e.g Arundel felt as though he was ignored over issues with
the Spanish in favour of Buckingham. It was also thought that Buckingham was an inept
Royal Admiral, (and this was exemplified by the failure in Cadiz that resulted in the loss of
