‘The personalities of the early Stuart monarchs were responsible for a breakdown in relations
between Crown and Parliament in the years 1603 to 1629.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Many historians have suggested that it was the personalities of both James I and Charles I to which was
responsible to the breakdown of relations between the Crown and the Monarch between the years of 1603 and
1629, however, it can be suggested that other factors such as their relationships with their George Villiers as
well as the style of their courts were also accountable to this breakdown of relations. When considering the two
monarchs, although James I was a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings believing his authority was
superior, he was nevertheless cooperative in comparison to his son who was immensely protective of his royal
prerogative and saw parliamentary grievances as rebellion. Arguably, it was James I relationship with the Duke
of Buckingham what was responsible for the breakdown of relations between him and parliament, and primarily
the nature of Charles’ character which contributed to his breakdown of relations with parliament.
Many historians have credited the personalities of the earlier Stuart monarchs as being responsible to the
breakdown of relations between the Crown and Parliament between the years of 1603 to 1629 as both James I
and Charles I both believed in the theory of Divine Right of Kings which as a result, limited their ability to
cooperate effectively with Parliament - an idea which is evident when considering the Great Contract as well as
Charles’ dismissal of Parliament in 1629 which signified the beginning of his personal rule. However, although
James was not always negotiable with Parliament, he was nevertheless a pragmatic ruler who understood a
strained relationship between him and parliament, would only place limitations upon his power due to the
financial power which they held over him, as a result, this made James cooperative - an idea which is evident
when considering how in 1622, James attempted to reduce his financial spendings following Parliamentary
grievances by promising Cranfield that he would reduce his annual spending of £500,000 to £100,000 - although
this failed and James continued to abuse his finances, it nevertheless does demonstrate he was a ruler who was
willing to cooperate with Parliament, however finance influenced his inability to do so effectively.
Contrastingly, it can be agreed that it was the character of Charles I which was responsible for the breakdown in
relations between him and Parliament because unlike his father, Charles was not a cooperative monarch and was
highly protective of his royal prerogative seeing grievances as rebellions to which questioned his Divine Rights
- an idea which is evidenced by how in 1629, Charles dissolved parliament prior to his personal rule due to his
frustration that grievances were being held regarding war which prevented his accessibility to the finances
which he desired. It can be agreed that although James was a cooperative king, his lavish lifestyle to which
‘suited’ his character did contribute to the breakdown of relations between himself and parliament during his
reign, and contrastingly, Charles defensiveness of his royal prerogative made him a unnegotiable monarch who
dismissed parliamentary grievances due to his belief that they resembled rebellion.
On the other hand, arguably, it was the factor of James I and Charles I’s relationships with George Villiers which
was responsible for the breakdown of relations between the Crown and Monarch between the years of 1603 and
1628, as both rulers granted Villiers with immense military and political power as well as financial luxury,
despite the Duke’s unpopularity with Parliament due to his expeditions and failure to secure the Spanish Match.
It can be understood that James’ relationship with Villiers was responsible for the breakdown of relations
between the King and Parliament when considering how following his return from Spain in 1623 where he had
travelled to secure a political marriage between Prince Charles and the Spanish Infanta Isabella, Parliament
attempted to impeach the Duke to which James blocked by dissolving parliament. This knowledge demonstrates
how James’ protection of Villiers ultimately created a negative relationship between the King and Parliament as
James became less cooperative and more defensive which as a result saw limitations on their ability to
effectively cooperate. This idea is also evident when considering how similarly in 1627, Charles dissolved
Parliament following another attempt to impeach Villiers due to his failed expedition to Cadiz the previous year
to which ultimately was both a military and political embarrassment to Parliament due to the lives lost as well as
Villier’s poor naval skills. Furthermore, both James and Charles provided Villiers money to which had been
granted to them by Parliament - in 1623, James provided the Duke with £40,000 as well as a house in London
by the Thames. Both monarch’s relationships with Villiers ultimately contributed to a breakdown of relations
between the King and Parliament between the years of 1603 and 1629 as they continued to grant the Duke
political and financial power despite the grievances of Parliament to those who were cautious of the influence to
between Crown and Parliament in the years 1603 to 1629.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Many historians have suggested that it was the personalities of both James I and Charles I to which was
responsible to the breakdown of relations between the Crown and the Monarch between the years of 1603 and
1629, however, it can be suggested that other factors such as their relationships with their George Villiers as
well as the style of their courts were also accountable to this breakdown of relations. When considering the two
monarchs, although James I was a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings believing his authority was
superior, he was nevertheless cooperative in comparison to his son who was immensely protective of his royal
prerogative and saw parliamentary grievances as rebellion. Arguably, it was James I relationship with the Duke
of Buckingham what was responsible for the breakdown of relations between him and parliament, and primarily
the nature of Charles’ character which contributed to his breakdown of relations with parliament.
Many historians have credited the personalities of the earlier Stuart monarchs as being responsible to the
breakdown of relations between the Crown and Parliament between the years of 1603 to 1629 as both James I
and Charles I both believed in the theory of Divine Right of Kings which as a result, limited their ability to
cooperate effectively with Parliament - an idea which is evident when considering the Great Contract as well as
Charles’ dismissal of Parliament in 1629 which signified the beginning of his personal rule. However, although
James was not always negotiable with Parliament, he was nevertheless a pragmatic ruler who understood a
strained relationship between him and parliament, would only place limitations upon his power due to the
financial power which they held over him, as a result, this made James cooperative - an idea which is evident
when considering how in 1622, James attempted to reduce his financial spendings following Parliamentary
grievances by promising Cranfield that he would reduce his annual spending of £500,000 to £100,000 - although
this failed and James continued to abuse his finances, it nevertheless does demonstrate he was a ruler who was
willing to cooperate with Parliament, however finance influenced his inability to do so effectively.
Contrastingly, it can be agreed that it was the character of Charles I which was responsible for the breakdown in
relations between him and Parliament because unlike his father, Charles was not a cooperative monarch and was
highly protective of his royal prerogative seeing grievances as rebellions to which questioned his Divine Rights
- an idea which is evidenced by how in 1629, Charles dissolved parliament prior to his personal rule due to his
frustration that grievances were being held regarding war which prevented his accessibility to the finances
which he desired. It can be agreed that although James was a cooperative king, his lavish lifestyle to which
‘suited’ his character did contribute to the breakdown of relations between himself and parliament during his
reign, and contrastingly, Charles defensiveness of his royal prerogative made him a unnegotiable monarch who
dismissed parliamentary grievances due to his belief that they resembled rebellion.
On the other hand, arguably, it was the factor of James I and Charles I’s relationships with George Villiers which
was responsible for the breakdown of relations between the Crown and Monarch between the years of 1603 and
1628, as both rulers granted Villiers with immense military and political power as well as financial luxury,
despite the Duke’s unpopularity with Parliament due to his expeditions and failure to secure the Spanish Match.
It can be understood that James’ relationship with Villiers was responsible for the breakdown of relations
between the King and Parliament when considering how following his return from Spain in 1623 where he had
travelled to secure a political marriage between Prince Charles and the Spanish Infanta Isabella, Parliament
attempted to impeach the Duke to which James blocked by dissolving parliament. This knowledge demonstrates
how James’ protection of Villiers ultimately created a negative relationship between the King and Parliament as
James became less cooperative and more defensive which as a result saw limitations on their ability to
effectively cooperate. This idea is also evident when considering how similarly in 1627, Charles dissolved
Parliament following another attempt to impeach Villiers due to his failed expedition to Cadiz the previous year
to which ultimately was both a military and political embarrassment to Parliament due to the lives lost as well as
Villier’s poor naval skills. Furthermore, both James and Charles provided Villiers money to which had been
granted to them by Parliament - in 1623, James provided the Duke with £40,000 as well as a house in London
by the Thames. Both monarch’s relationships with Villiers ultimately contributed to a breakdown of relations
between the King and Parliament between the years of 1603 and 1629 as they continued to grant the Duke
political and financial power despite the grievances of Parliament to those who were cautious of the influence to
