‘The personalities of the early Stuart monarchs were responsible for a breakdown in
relations between Crown and Parliament in the years 1604-1629.’ Assess the validity of this
view.
The personalities of the early Stuart monarchs could be seen as leading to a breakdown in
relations between Crown and Parliament in the years 1604-1629, however other factors
such as foreign policy, finance and favourites were also major factors.
James I (1603-1625) was intellectual, pragmatic, and loud, and whilst he may have caused
some tensions between Crown and Parliament, it would be unconvincing to say that his
personality led to a complete breakdown in relations. For example, in James’ first Parliament
(1604-1611) there were multiple disagreements such as over monopolies and impositions.
However, they were largely resolved and didn’t cause complete breakdowns in relations.
There was also tension from 1618 because of James’ refusal to join the Thirty Years War
because of his desire to be ‘Rex Pacificus’ (peaceful King). However, he can be seen as
pragmatic because in 1624 he accepted joining the war in order to demonstrate the financial
burden that would be placed on Parliament. Therefore, it can’t be argued that the
personality of James caused a complete breakdown in relations between Crown and
Parliament.
Charles was a contrast to James as he was shy, unapproachable and took opposition as
direct personal attacks. This meant that he largely contributed to the breakdown in relations
between Crown and Parliament. For example, in 1625 Charles requested a loan of £1 million
to fund his Anglo-Spanish war however it was rejected because Charles failed to explain his
reasoning for the request to Parliament. As a result of this he turned to the Forced Loan in
1626 to raise prerogative income. He treated payment of the loan as a ‘test of political
loyalty’ and imprisoned 76 people who refused to pay. The period of Personal Rule (1629-
1640) also began as a reaction from Charles to the Three Resolutions. The Three Resolutions
were made by radical MPs, and they opposed the rise of Arminianism and prerogative
income. Charles responded by dissolving Parliament. Therefore, the personality of Charles I
can be seen as a reason for the breakdown of relations between Crown and Parliament
because he took opposition personally and acted against Parliament’s wishes because of his
inflexible belief in Divine Right.
However, foreign policy can also be seen as a reason for the breakdown of relations between
Crown and Parliament, especially during the early years of Charles’ reign (1625-1629). For
example. The Cadiz expedition (1625) failed because many soldiers died of disease and
starvation before any fighting even began. The siege of La Rochelle also failed because the
scaling ladders weren’t tall enough to breach the fort and the Huguenots were also reluctant
to accept help. This caused a breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament
because it had a negative impact on finances and was blamed on Buckingham (Charles’
favourite). Charles dissolved Parliament in 1626 because Parliament began impeachment
proceedings against Buckingham who was Lord High Admiral. Therefore, failed foreign policy
also led to a breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament between 1625-29.
relations between Crown and Parliament in the years 1604-1629.’ Assess the validity of this
view.
The personalities of the early Stuart monarchs could be seen as leading to a breakdown in
relations between Crown and Parliament in the years 1604-1629, however other factors
such as foreign policy, finance and favourites were also major factors.
James I (1603-1625) was intellectual, pragmatic, and loud, and whilst he may have caused
some tensions between Crown and Parliament, it would be unconvincing to say that his
personality led to a complete breakdown in relations. For example, in James’ first Parliament
(1604-1611) there were multiple disagreements such as over monopolies and impositions.
However, they were largely resolved and didn’t cause complete breakdowns in relations.
There was also tension from 1618 because of James’ refusal to join the Thirty Years War
because of his desire to be ‘Rex Pacificus’ (peaceful King). However, he can be seen as
pragmatic because in 1624 he accepted joining the war in order to demonstrate the financial
burden that would be placed on Parliament. Therefore, it can’t be argued that the
personality of James caused a complete breakdown in relations between Crown and
Parliament.
Charles was a contrast to James as he was shy, unapproachable and took opposition as
direct personal attacks. This meant that he largely contributed to the breakdown in relations
between Crown and Parliament. For example, in 1625 Charles requested a loan of £1 million
to fund his Anglo-Spanish war however it was rejected because Charles failed to explain his
reasoning for the request to Parliament. As a result of this he turned to the Forced Loan in
1626 to raise prerogative income. He treated payment of the loan as a ‘test of political
loyalty’ and imprisoned 76 people who refused to pay. The period of Personal Rule (1629-
1640) also began as a reaction from Charles to the Three Resolutions. The Three Resolutions
were made by radical MPs, and they opposed the rise of Arminianism and prerogative
income. Charles responded by dissolving Parliament. Therefore, the personality of Charles I
can be seen as a reason for the breakdown of relations between Crown and Parliament
because he took opposition personally and acted against Parliament’s wishes because of his
inflexible belief in Divine Right.
However, foreign policy can also be seen as a reason for the breakdown of relations between
Crown and Parliament, especially during the early years of Charles’ reign (1625-1629). For
example. The Cadiz expedition (1625) failed because many soldiers died of disease and
starvation before any fighting even began. The siege of La Rochelle also failed because the
scaling ladders weren’t tall enough to breach the fort and the Huguenots were also reluctant
to accept help. This caused a breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament
because it had a negative impact on finances and was blamed on Buckingham (Charles’
favourite). Charles dissolved Parliament in 1626 because Parliament began impeachment
proceedings against Buckingham who was Lord High Admiral. Therefore, failed foreign policy
also led to a breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament between 1625-29.
