‘How far do you agree that the Personal Rule was an attempt by Charles I to establish an
absolute monarchy?’
The relationship between Charles I and Parliament had been hostile since Charles ascended
to the throne in 1625, demanding high levels of taxation to fund his involvement in several
European wars. Parliament continually refused his requests which culminated with the
Petition of Right, whereby Parliament demanded that citizens would no longer pay forced
loans, be imprisoned without trial or subjected to martial law. When Parliament began to
investigate breaches of the Petition in 1629, Charles ordered their dismissal. During his
Personal Rule, critics argued that Charles was attempting to establish an absolute monarchy,
meaning the monarch has supreme authority and political power which is not restricted by a
constitution or legislature. To assess the extent to which Charles was attempting to establish
an absolute monarchy during the Personal Rule, it is important to consider whether Charles
sought to eradicate the concept of a democratic parliament and rely solely on his trusted
advisers.
On one hand, the Personal Rule was an attempt by Charles I to establish an absolute
monarchy, because he proceeded to rule alone with supreme authority, accompanied only
by a few trusted advisers. For example, Charles relied on influential figures such the Duke of
Buckingham, who was unpopular with Parliament due to his role in negotiating Charles’
marriage to Catholic princess Henrietta Maria in 1625. Charles’ marriage exacerbated fears
regarding the potential for a Popish Plot, as it was correctly assumed that Henrietta Maria
and her Catholic advisers would significantly influence Charles’ actions. Consequently, this
also generated fears of absolutism, due to Charles’ associations with the French King Louis
XIII, which provoked concerns regarding Britain potentially becoming an absolute monarchy.
Furthermore, Charles surrounded himself with prominent Arminian members of the upper
clergy, such as Laud, who was promoted to the role of Archbishop of Canterbury. This
instigated further unrest as those selected to govern the church were deemed
unrepresentative of the majority of the Protestant clergy and laypeople, who viewed
Arminians as Catholic sympathisers. As an authoritarian not dissimilar to Charles, Laud
believed strongly in divine right and strived to implement religious uniformity. This implies
that Charles intended to establish an absolute monarchy, as he relied solely on a few trusted
advisers without consulting Parliament, who represented the majority of the population.
Collectively, Charles’ advisers contributed to creating religious and political resentment,
which exacerbated fears that Charles was attempting to establish an absolute monarchy.
Another reason to suggest that Charles I intended to establish an absolute monarchy during
his Personal Rule was his attempts to gain financial independence from Parliament.
Previously, the monarch could only raise taxation (primarily used to pursue aggressive
foreign policies and international conflicts) with the consent of Parliament. However, Charles
continued to collect tonnage and poundage without Parliament’s consent, which violated
absolute monarchy?’
The relationship between Charles I and Parliament had been hostile since Charles ascended
to the throne in 1625, demanding high levels of taxation to fund his involvement in several
European wars. Parliament continually refused his requests which culminated with the
Petition of Right, whereby Parliament demanded that citizens would no longer pay forced
loans, be imprisoned without trial or subjected to martial law. When Parliament began to
investigate breaches of the Petition in 1629, Charles ordered their dismissal. During his
Personal Rule, critics argued that Charles was attempting to establish an absolute monarchy,
meaning the monarch has supreme authority and political power which is not restricted by a
constitution or legislature. To assess the extent to which Charles was attempting to establish
an absolute monarchy during the Personal Rule, it is important to consider whether Charles
sought to eradicate the concept of a democratic parliament and rely solely on his trusted
advisers.
On one hand, the Personal Rule was an attempt by Charles I to establish an absolute
monarchy, because he proceeded to rule alone with supreme authority, accompanied only
by a few trusted advisers. For example, Charles relied on influential figures such the Duke of
Buckingham, who was unpopular with Parliament due to his role in negotiating Charles’
marriage to Catholic princess Henrietta Maria in 1625. Charles’ marriage exacerbated fears
regarding the potential for a Popish Plot, as it was correctly assumed that Henrietta Maria
and her Catholic advisers would significantly influence Charles’ actions. Consequently, this
also generated fears of absolutism, due to Charles’ associations with the French King Louis
XIII, which provoked concerns regarding Britain potentially becoming an absolute monarchy.
Furthermore, Charles surrounded himself with prominent Arminian members of the upper
clergy, such as Laud, who was promoted to the role of Archbishop of Canterbury. This
instigated further unrest as those selected to govern the church were deemed
unrepresentative of the majority of the Protestant clergy and laypeople, who viewed
Arminians as Catholic sympathisers. As an authoritarian not dissimilar to Charles, Laud
believed strongly in divine right and strived to implement religious uniformity. This implies
that Charles intended to establish an absolute monarchy, as he relied solely on a few trusted
advisers without consulting Parliament, who represented the majority of the population.
Collectively, Charles’ advisers contributed to creating religious and political resentment,
which exacerbated fears that Charles was attempting to establish an absolute monarchy.
Another reason to suggest that Charles I intended to establish an absolute monarchy during
his Personal Rule was his attempts to gain financial independence from Parliament.
Previously, the monarch could only raise taxation (primarily used to pursue aggressive
foreign policies and international conflicts) with the consent of Parliament. However, Charles
continued to collect tonnage and poundage without Parliament’s consent, which violated
