James I Note
- James I: style of government; court and favourites; Divine Right; the union with Scotlan
- Religious issue
- Financial problem
- Relations with Parliamen
- Foreign polic
Question
1) How effective was the conduct of English foreign policy in the period 1603–29? (2010
2) How wisely did James I and Charles I deal with the challenge of Puritanism? (2010
3) ‘The dif culties faced by James I and Charles I in dealing with Parliament in the period
1604–29 were of their own making.’ Discuss. (2011
4) Why were the British people increasingly divided by religious issues in the period 1603–
42? (2011
5) How successfully did James I and Charles I deal with their nancial problems between
1603 and 1629? (2012
6) How skilful a ruler was James I? (2013
7) ‘Finance lay at the root of the problematic relationship between Crown and Parliament
between 1603 and 1629.’ Discuss. (2014
8) How successful a king was James I? (2015
9) Account for the appeal and signi cance of Puritanism in the years 1603–42. (2015
10) Why was the issue of nance so important to relations between James I and his
parliaments? (2016
Backgroun
Ruled 1603-162
When he inherited the English crown in 1603, he had been king of Scotland for 35 years. He had
achieved some success there, especially with the Scottish church and aristocracy
Although England was richer and more politically powerful than Scotland, it suffered acute internal
tensions and the government and crown were impeded by several serious and deep-seated
structural weaknesses
- The rapid religious, social (population growth, the rise of the gentry class and the rapid
expansion of London) and economic (price in ation) changes had alarmed and alienated many
and created deep divisions
- The crown was deeply impoverished and at war with Spain, lacking the money necessary to
maintain an effective standing army
- England’s bureaucracy was corrupt and inef cient
- Despite her failure to address these problems, Elizabeth’s image cultivation meant that the
English saw her reign as a “Golden Age”, making her a hard act to follow
Historiograph
Sir Anthony Weldon’s “The Court and Character of King James”
- A critical account of James’ reign and character written following Weldon’s dismissal as an
English civil servant after he criticised the Scots in “A Description of Scotland” (1617)
- He described James as the “wisest fool in Christendom”, someone who ogled any young male
courtier and never washed
- This became the prime source for many subsequent historical assessments, whose authors
failed to make suf cient allowance for bias
1
fi s
)
d
s
y
y
5
s
fi s
)
:
)
fi .
t
.
fi.
)
.
)
fifl)
.
)
fi:
.
.
.
)
)
)
d
, - Sir Walter Scott set several of his historical novels at James’ court, presenting the king to his
wide readership as a gross offender against the moral standards demanded by Victorian society
- The king’s reputation reached its nadir in 1956 with D. H. Willson’s “King James VI and I”.
Willson condemned James’ “sad irresolution” and “weaker nature” and dismissed him in his last
years as a “broken, debauched and repulsive old man”
During the last 50 years historians have began to look beyond Weldon
- Gordon Donaldson (1965) and Jenny Wormald (1981) have launched a reassessment of James
- Donaldson: James VI had been a ruler of “very remarkable political ability and sagacity in
deciding on policy, and of conspicuous tenacity in having carried it out” and there was no reason
why he should have lost this ability in 1603
- Some contemporaries saw the king in a very favourable light. One of Charles I’s bishops
(Godfrey Goodman) argued in “The Court of James I” that James had been a “most just and
good king”. Sir Simonds D’Ewes praised James for “his augmenting of the liberties of the
English”. Thomas Fuller (1650s) argued that James’ reign was one of “constant tranquility
without any tumours of trouble to entertain posterity with”
- In the early 1970s the reevaluation of James by Scottish historians had begun to gain
acceptance among English and American scholars. Maurice Lee (1990): “James’ shortcomings
were mostly those of style rather than substance”. Conrad Russell (1979): James achieved and
maintained “a high degree of political stability”
Some historians have felt compelled to write about James’ responsibility for the civil war, being
unable to put aside their knowledge of the civil war during Charles’ reign
Writers in the older, hostile historical tradition were reluctant to blame the tragic gure of Charles
for the civil war and preferred to blame James. Gardiner (1883): James “sowed the seeds of
revolution and disaster”. Writers in the more sympathetic modern approach stress that James
faced numerous problems that he did best to leave alone - they praise him for what did not happen
in his reign
Cour
Whig historians’ views on James’ character have all too often been unduly coloured by Weldon’s
polemical character-assassination of James, “The Court and Character of James I”. However, one
label that James does merit is that of an extravagant individual who played host to an equally
extravagant court
Durston: In early modern society, rulers set the tone of their courts and the behaviour of courtiers
mirrored to a considerable degree the personal character and conduct of the presiding monarch
Walter Raleigh: James’ court shone “like rotten wood”
Durston: James’ court was “notorious for its extravagance, venality and moral laxity”
The ante-supper involved an entire banquet being laid before the guests before being quickly taken
away and replaced by another set of dishes.
James was spending £500,000 annually by 1609 (Elizabeth had only spent around £300,000 a
year).
Even taking into account in ation, James’ need to win over his new subjects and the fact that he
had a family to support (unlike Elizabeth), this was not only extravagant but politically naive as well.
James’ pro igacy made it harder for MPs to appreciate that there was an underlying problem with
crown nances, bringing James into unnecessary con ict with Parliament and undermining his
ministers’ attempts at nancial reform.
2
t
fi .
fl .
fi fl
.
.
.
fl.
.
:
.
fi .
.
- James I: style of government; court and favourites; Divine Right; the union with Scotlan
- Religious issue
- Financial problem
- Relations with Parliamen
- Foreign polic
Question
1) How effective was the conduct of English foreign policy in the period 1603–29? (2010
2) How wisely did James I and Charles I deal with the challenge of Puritanism? (2010
3) ‘The dif culties faced by James I and Charles I in dealing with Parliament in the period
1604–29 were of their own making.’ Discuss. (2011
4) Why were the British people increasingly divided by religious issues in the period 1603–
42? (2011
5) How successfully did James I and Charles I deal with their nancial problems between
1603 and 1629? (2012
6) How skilful a ruler was James I? (2013
7) ‘Finance lay at the root of the problematic relationship between Crown and Parliament
between 1603 and 1629.’ Discuss. (2014
8) How successful a king was James I? (2015
9) Account for the appeal and signi cance of Puritanism in the years 1603–42. (2015
10) Why was the issue of nance so important to relations between James I and his
parliaments? (2016
Backgroun
Ruled 1603-162
When he inherited the English crown in 1603, he had been king of Scotland for 35 years. He had
achieved some success there, especially with the Scottish church and aristocracy
Although England was richer and more politically powerful than Scotland, it suffered acute internal
tensions and the government and crown were impeded by several serious and deep-seated
structural weaknesses
- The rapid religious, social (population growth, the rise of the gentry class and the rapid
expansion of London) and economic (price in ation) changes had alarmed and alienated many
and created deep divisions
- The crown was deeply impoverished and at war with Spain, lacking the money necessary to
maintain an effective standing army
- England’s bureaucracy was corrupt and inef cient
- Despite her failure to address these problems, Elizabeth’s image cultivation meant that the
English saw her reign as a “Golden Age”, making her a hard act to follow
Historiograph
Sir Anthony Weldon’s “The Court and Character of King James”
- A critical account of James’ reign and character written following Weldon’s dismissal as an
English civil servant after he criticised the Scots in “A Description of Scotland” (1617)
- He described James as the “wisest fool in Christendom”, someone who ogled any young male
courtier and never washed
- This became the prime source for many subsequent historical assessments, whose authors
failed to make suf cient allowance for bias
1
fi s
)
d
s
y
y
5
s
fi s
)
:
)
fi .
t
.
fi.
)
.
)
fifl)
.
)
fi:
.
.
.
)
)
)
d
, - Sir Walter Scott set several of his historical novels at James’ court, presenting the king to his
wide readership as a gross offender against the moral standards demanded by Victorian society
- The king’s reputation reached its nadir in 1956 with D. H. Willson’s “King James VI and I”.
Willson condemned James’ “sad irresolution” and “weaker nature” and dismissed him in his last
years as a “broken, debauched and repulsive old man”
During the last 50 years historians have began to look beyond Weldon
- Gordon Donaldson (1965) and Jenny Wormald (1981) have launched a reassessment of James
- Donaldson: James VI had been a ruler of “very remarkable political ability and sagacity in
deciding on policy, and of conspicuous tenacity in having carried it out” and there was no reason
why he should have lost this ability in 1603
- Some contemporaries saw the king in a very favourable light. One of Charles I’s bishops
(Godfrey Goodman) argued in “The Court of James I” that James had been a “most just and
good king”. Sir Simonds D’Ewes praised James for “his augmenting of the liberties of the
English”. Thomas Fuller (1650s) argued that James’ reign was one of “constant tranquility
without any tumours of trouble to entertain posterity with”
- In the early 1970s the reevaluation of James by Scottish historians had begun to gain
acceptance among English and American scholars. Maurice Lee (1990): “James’ shortcomings
were mostly those of style rather than substance”. Conrad Russell (1979): James achieved and
maintained “a high degree of political stability”
Some historians have felt compelled to write about James’ responsibility for the civil war, being
unable to put aside their knowledge of the civil war during Charles’ reign
Writers in the older, hostile historical tradition were reluctant to blame the tragic gure of Charles
for the civil war and preferred to blame James. Gardiner (1883): James “sowed the seeds of
revolution and disaster”. Writers in the more sympathetic modern approach stress that James
faced numerous problems that he did best to leave alone - they praise him for what did not happen
in his reign
Cour
Whig historians’ views on James’ character have all too often been unduly coloured by Weldon’s
polemical character-assassination of James, “The Court and Character of James I”. However, one
label that James does merit is that of an extravagant individual who played host to an equally
extravagant court
Durston: In early modern society, rulers set the tone of their courts and the behaviour of courtiers
mirrored to a considerable degree the personal character and conduct of the presiding monarch
Walter Raleigh: James’ court shone “like rotten wood”
Durston: James’ court was “notorious for its extravagance, venality and moral laxity”
The ante-supper involved an entire banquet being laid before the guests before being quickly taken
away and replaced by another set of dishes.
James was spending £500,000 annually by 1609 (Elizabeth had only spent around £300,000 a
year).
Even taking into account in ation, James’ need to win over his new subjects and the fact that he
had a family to support (unlike Elizabeth), this was not only extravagant but politically naive as well.
James’ pro igacy made it harder for MPs to appreciate that there was an underlying problem with
crown nances, bringing James into unnecessary con ict with Parliament and undermining his
ministers’ attempts at nancial reform.
2
t
fi .
fl .
fi fl
.
.
.
fl.
.
:
.
fi .
.
