‘Charles I showed in the years 1628 to 1648 that he could not be trusted.’ Assess the validity of
this view
P1: for: finance:
Following the beginning of Charles I’s personal reign in March 1629, the King was in a debt estimated
to be equivalent to two million pounds. In order to address this debt, Charles showed he could not be
trusted when he used his royal prerogative to introduce corrupt ways of establishing an income which
would prevent his need to reopen parliament for a financial allowance. This is evident when
considering both the introduction of ship money in inland countries during 1635, and the introduction
of the Book of Rates in 1636, which outlined Charles as being a fiscal feudalist as he was willing to
create mass poverty across his country in order to create financial stability for himself. This made him
untrustworthy as it made it evident that Charles’ interests were not enlign with his country but instead
with only his own prerogative, something which would become only more evidetable in the 1640s,
where Charles was willing to drag England into a Civil War in an attempt to maintain his position as
King - this showed his inability to be trusted as the consequences of his royal prerogative allowed the
deaths of 62,000 soldiers and civilians between the first Civil War alone. However, this arguably did
not show Charles as untrustworthy, instead it demonstrated the extent of his absolutism which made
him both untrustworthy but also a threat to the country's political and financial stability therefore
suggesting the predictability of his downfall.
P2: against: negotiation:
However, although Charles was uncooperative, Parliament nevertheless still attempted to negotiate
with the Monarch therefore suggesting that Charles was not untrustworthy as otherwise the
maintenance of Charles reign would have been abandoned. Although the proposals of the 1642
‘Nineteen Propositions’ would have heavily reduced the power and authority of Charles I (due to the
alteration to Privy Councils as well as Charles compliance with religious reformations and with the
acceptance of the Militia Bill), it would have nevertheless created political stability as both Charles and
Parliament would be able to rebuild and recover the country; for Parliament to have suggested this
cooperation demonstrates that they must have had faith in Charles (therefore making him
trustworthy), however, arguably the Nineteen Proposals were not influenced by cooperation but rather
the prevention of radically removing a monarch which as, the Millenarians believed, would have
contributed to the belief that the ‘world was upside down.’ Arguably, it was not necessary the idea that
Charles was trustworthy, but instead that the cooperation between him and Parliament would be more
beneficial in the stability of the country following the personal rule which financially, politically and
religiously ruined the country (and Scotland and Ireland.)
P3: for: attempted arrest of the 5 mps:
In January 1642, Charles demonstrated that he was untrustworthy when following the introduction of
the Militia Bill, he attempted to arrest five MPs whom he believed were ‘rebelling’ against his personal
rule by underestimating his authority. Although this coup was unsuccessful, according to Pymme, it
demonstrated how uncooperatiable the King had become. Charles' actions had presented him as
being so untrustworthy, that as a result, he felt inclined to move his family from London to Hampton
Court for their safety - this therefore enabled Parliament to ultimately control the entirety of London.
Charles' attempted arrest of the five MPs represents the political divisions between himself and
Parliament. His absolutism undoubtedly made him untrustworthy as his inability to see criticism as
anything else other than protests (evident in the case of the 5 MPs) can be seen as representing how
incooperatable he had become, this therefore making him untrustworthy.
this view
P1: for: finance:
Following the beginning of Charles I’s personal reign in March 1629, the King was in a debt estimated
to be equivalent to two million pounds. In order to address this debt, Charles showed he could not be
trusted when he used his royal prerogative to introduce corrupt ways of establishing an income which
would prevent his need to reopen parliament for a financial allowance. This is evident when
considering both the introduction of ship money in inland countries during 1635, and the introduction
of the Book of Rates in 1636, which outlined Charles as being a fiscal feudalist as he was willing to
create mass poverty across his country in order to create financial stability for himself. This made him
untrustworthy as it made it evident that Charles’ interests were not enlign with his country but instead
with only his own prerogative, something which would become only more evidetable in the 1640s,
where Charles was willing to drag England into a Civil War in an attempt to maintain his position as
King - this showed his inability to be trusted as the consequences of his royal prerogative allowed the
deaths of 62,000 soldiers and civilians between the first Civil War alone. However, this arguably did
not show Charles as untrustworthy, instead it demonstrated the extent of his absolutism which made
him both untrustworthy but also a threat to the country's political and financial stability therefore
suggesting the predictability of his downfall.
P2: against: negotiation:
However, although Charles was uncooperative, Parliament nevertheless still attempted to negotiate
with the Monarch therefore suggesting that Charles was not untrustworthy as otherwise the
maintenance of Charles reign would have been abandoned. Although the proposals of the 1642
‘Nineteen Propositions’ would have heavily reduced the power and authority of Charles I (due to the
alteration to Privy Councils as well as Charles compliance with religious reformations and with the
acceptance of the Militia Bill), it would have nevertheless created political stability as both Charles and
Parliament would be able to rebuild and recover the country; for Parliament to have suggested this
cooperation demonstrates that they must have had faith in Charles (therefore making him
trustworthy), however, arguably the Nineteen Proposals were not influenced by cooperation but rather
the prevention of radically removing a monarch which as, the Millenarians believed, would have
contributed to the belief that the ‘world was upside down.’ Arguably, it was not necessary the idea that
Charles was trustworthy, but instead that the cooperation between him and Parliament would be more
beneficial in the stability of the country following the personal rule which financially, politically and
religiously ruined the country (and Scotland and Ireland.)
P3: for: attempted arrest of the 5 mps:
In January 1642, Charles demonstrated that he was untrustworthy when following the introduction of
the Militia Bill, he attempted to arrest five MPs whom he believed were ‘rebelling’ against his personal
rule by underestimating his authority. Although this coup was unsuccessful, according to Pymme, it
demonstrated how uncooperatiable the King had become. Charles' actions had presented him as
being so untrustworthy, that as a result, he felt inclined to move his family from London to Hampton
Court for their safety - this therefore enabled Parliament to ultimately control the entirety of London.
Charles' attempted arrest of the five MPs represents the political divisions between himself and
Parliament. His absolutism undoubtedly made him untrustworthy as his inability to see criticism as
anything else other than protests (evident in the case of the 5 MPs) can be seen as representing how
incooperatable he had become, this therefore making him untrustworthy.
