‘The architect of his own downfall’ assess the validity of this view with
reference to the reign of Charles I 1625-1649 .
Tulsi Bevil
Upon the execution of Charles, England became a republic due to many mistakes
made by the king throughout his reign. However, he is not purely to blame, from the
signing of the engagement on 26th December 1647 his downfall was inevitable, but
he built a case against himself during his personal rule from 1629 which ultimately
led to him being found guilty of treason.
At the start of his reign Parliament was militant and provoked Charles into doing
things which led him to being disliked by some. An example of this would be not
granting him tonnage and poundage in 1625, leading to the forced loan of 1626,
which was opposed by many. Another example of this would be the ‘Three
Resolutions’ of 1629 which required force against the Speaker of the house in order
to condemn Arminianism and the extended collection of tonnage and poundage. This
triggered Charles to dissolve parliament two days later. In both of these instances
Parliament was militant and tried to gain more power, provoking a response from the
king. Nonetheless, Charles wasn’t losing popularity or approval on a large scale,
meaning that at this point he was not ‘the architect of his own downfall’.
During the personal role things changed, largely due to Charles’s religious reforms.
In 1633 he appointed Laud as the Archbishop of Canterbury which later led to
reforms that partially contributed to his downfall, especially in Scotland. Charles
visited Scotland for the First time in 1633, he was an absent king, meaning that he
did not understand the religious landscape. So, when Laud introduced the Scottish
cannons in 1636 and a new prayer book in 1637, there was outrage. Scotland was a
Presbyterian country and was against Laudian reforms and Laudian religious
uniformity, so due to the naivety on Charles‘ part he triggered the first bishops war in
1637. This objection to Charles’ religious ideas shows rising opposition to Charles,
however this was only one of the first steps contributing to his downfall. Also, the trial
of Prynne, Burton and Bastwick supports the idea that there was starting to be more
opposition to his religious and absolutist reforms. The three men were trialled at star
chamber and were found guilty of treason, they were fined £5000 each and were
sentenced to life in prison by a slim majority of seven judges to five. Considering that
Charles could choose the judges, this was a rather close call, showing rising
opposition, which would indicate that Charles was starting to take the first steps
leading to his downfall.
In November 1640 Pym introduced the ‘Grand Remonstrance’ to the commons, this
was essentially a critique of Charles’ rule since 1625 and was passed by a majority,
showing growing opposition in Parliament. Then in February 1641 the Triennial Act
was passed limiting Charles’ power, which only made him want more power back.
Parliament again acted in a militant manner and passed the Act of Attainder in May
1641 allowing for the execution of Wentworth, this further lead to the Irish rebellion in
October 1641. This was partially Charles’ fault for allowing Wentworth to be
‘thorough’ in Ireland. Yet it can be argued that Parliament indirectly caused the Irish
rebellion by removing Wentworth’s repressive regime, allowing space for an uprising.
It can also be argued that Charles aided his own downfall further in January 1642
with the five members coup, which allowed people to see his true, absolutist
reference to the reign of Charles I 1625-1649 .
Tulsi Bevil
Upon the execution of Charles, England became a republic due to many mistakes
made by the king throughout his reign. However, he is not purely to blame, from the
signing of the engagement on 26th December 1647 his downfall was inevitable, but
he built a case against himself during his personal rule from 1629 which ultimately
led to him being found guilty of treason.
At the start of his reign Parliament was militant and provoked Charles into doing
things which led him to being disliked by some. An example of this would be not
granting him tonnage and poundage in 1625, leading to the forced loan of 1626,
which was opposed by many. Another example of this would be the ‘Three
Resolutions’ of 1629 which required force against the Speaker of the house in order
to condemn Arminianism and the extended collection of tonnage and poundage. This
triggered Charles to dissolve parliament two days later. In both of these instances
Parliament was militant and tried to gain more power, provoking a response from the
king. Nonetheless, Charles wasn’t losing popularity or approval on a large scale,
meaning that at this point he was not ‘the architect of his own downfall’.
During the personal role things changed, largely due to Charles’s religious reforms.
In 1633 he appointed Laud as the Archbishop of Canterbury which later led to
reforms that partially contributed to his downfall, especially in Scotland. Charles
visited Scotland for the First time in 1633, he was an absent king, meaning that he
did not understand the religious landscape. So, when Laud introduced the Scottish
cannons in 1636 and a new prayer book in 1637, there was outrage. Scotland was a
Presbyterian country and was against Laudian reforms and Laudian religious
uniformity, so due to the naivety on Charles‘ part he triggered the first bishops war in
1637. This objection to Charles’ religious ideas shows rising opposition to Charles,
however this was only one of the first steps contributing to his downfall. Also, the trial
of Prynne, Burton and Bastwick supports the idea that there was starting to be more
opposition to his religious and absolutist reforms. The three men were trialled at star
chamber and were found guilty of treason, they were fined £5000 each and were
sentenced to life in prison by a slim majority of seven judges to five. Considering that
Charles could choose the judges, this was a rather close call, showing rising
opposition, which would indicate that Charles was starting to take the first steps
leading to his downfall.
In November 1640 Pym introduced the ‘Grand Remonstrance’ to the commons, this
was essentially a critique of Charles’ rule since 1625 and was passed by a majority,
showing growing opposition in Parliament. Then in February 1641 the Triennial Act
was passed limiting Charles’ power, which only made him want more power back.
Parliament again acted in a militant manner and passed the Act of Attainder in May
1641 allowing for the execution of Wentworth, this further lead to the Irish rebellion in
October 1641. This was partially Charles’ fault for allowing Wentworth to be
‘thorough’ in Ireland. Yet it can be argued that Parliament indirectly caused the Irish
rebellion by removing Wentworth’s repressive regime, allowing space for an uprising.
It can also be argued that Charles aided his own downfall further in January 1642
with the five members coup, which allowed people to see his true, absolutist
