Charity Lai
To what extent was republican rule (1649-60) different from the personal rule of
Charles I (1629-40)?
The Republican Rule in 1649-60 was to a great extent different to Charles’ I Personal Rule in
1629-40. It can be considered that factors such as religion and politics was different in the years
1649-60 and 1629-40, although centralisation shows that the republican and personal rule was
in some ways similar.
Firstly, religion in 1649-60 was to a great extent different to 1629-40. During the Personal rule,
Charles focused strongly on imposing Arminianism and tried to bring uniformity across the
country. The teaching of Catechism in church, for example, was introduced and symbolised the
Laudian emphasis on ritual and communal worship. Physical interiors of the church were
changed and decorated and music was encouraged to create an image of the monarchy that
would support belief in the Divine right of Kings. One of the key differences in religion between
the two time periods was that under the republic, a new church system was introduced and
replaced the one that was in place in 1629-40. As stated in the Instrument of Government in
1653, Christianity was to be the public profession of the three nations and previous church
changes such as set prayers and ceremonies were no longer valid. There was arguably more
religious opposition during the republican rule than the personal rule because rather than
restricting individuals to express their views (like in 1629-40), it became more open for people to
choose how to worship. Therefore, it was allowing people to think differently and generated
more radical political groups such as the Fifth Monarchists and Quakers. By allowing these
groups the Republican government was also encouraging extremism and radicalism in other
aspects of life, which the Personal Rule wasn’t. Moreover, the church hierarchy during the
Personal Rule was an episcopal one and bishops were so central to government that they held
high offices. This can be compared to the acts of the republican government, where one can
see their attempts to ban bishops from the privy council and then abolish them altogether. This
proves that religion in 1649-60 was to a large extent different to 1629-40.
The new church settlement and ordinances such as the Triers and Ejectors Ordinance was
established for godly reformation during the Republican Rule to flourish. Oliver Cromwell, who
more or less replaced the role of the king, was the main driving force behind his godly
reformation and this was his main and most valued aim - he introduced the major-generals in
1655 to help bring back these reformations. On the other hand, one can argue that William
Laud, who was appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, was the main driving force
behind the religious changes during the Personal Rule and not Charles. He was angry that the
once powerful church had been lost during the Reformation therefore tried to restore the power
of the church. An example of this was his attempt to stop Puritanism by abolishing the Feoffees
in 1633 and the fact that Parliament was so determined to destroy him when they returned in
1641 proved the significance of the influence Laud made on religion during 1629-40. As a result,
one can understand how religion during the Personal Rule was mainly driven by Laud -
someone not at the highest position in government whilst Cromwell, who had the highest
To what extent was republican rule (1649-60) different from the personal rule of
Charles I (1629-40)?
The Republican Rule in 1649-60 was to a great extent different to Charles’ I Personal Rule in
1629-40. It can be considered that factors such as religion and politics was different in the years
1649-60 and 1629-40, although centralisation shows that the republican and personal rule was
in some ways similar.
Firstly, religion in 1649-60 was to a great extent different to 1629-40. During the Personal rule,
Charles focused strongly on imposing Arminianism and tried to bring uniformity across the
country. The teaching of Catechism in church, for example, was introduced and symbolised the
Laudian emphasis on ritual and communal worship. Physical interiors of the church were
changed and decorated and music was encouraged to create an image of the monarchy that
would support belief in the Divine right of Kings. One of the key differences in religion between
the two time periods was that under the republic, a new church system was introduced and
replaced the one that was in place in 1629-40. As stated in the Instrument of Government in
1653, Christianity was to be the public profession of the three nations and previous church
changes such as set prayers and ceremonies were no longer valid. There was arguably more
religious opposition during the republican rule than the personal rule because rather than
restricting individuals to express their views (like in 1629-40), it became more open for people to
choose how to worship. Therefore, it was allowing people to think differently and generated
more radical political groups such as the Fifth Monarchists and Quakers. By allowing these
groups the Republican government was also encouraging extremism and radicalism in other
aspects of life, which the Personal Rule wasn’t. Moreover, the church hierarchy during the
Personal Rule was an episcopal one and bishops were so central to government that they held
high offices. This can be compared to the acts of the republican government, where one can
see their attempts to ban bishops from the privy council and then abolish them altogether. This
proves that religion in 1649-60 was to a large extent different to 1629-40.
The new church settlement and ordinances such as the Triers and Ejectors Ordinance was
established for godly reformation during the Republican Rule to flourish. Oliver Cromwell, who
more or less replaced the role of the king, was the main driving force behind his godly
reformation and this was his main and most valued aim - he introduced the major-generals in
1655 to help bring back these reformations. On the other hand, one can argue that William
Laud, who was appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, was the main driving force
behind the religious changes during the Personal Rule and not Charles. He was angry that the
once powerful church had been lost during the Reformation therefore tried to restore the power
of the church. An example of this was his attempt to stop Puritanism by abolishing the Feoffees
in 1633 and the fact that Parliament was so determined to destroy him when they returned in
1641 proved the significance of the influence Laud made on religion during 1629-40. As a result,
one can understand how religion during the Personal Rule was mainly driven by Laud -
someone not at the highest position in government whilst Cromwell, who had the highest
