To what extent was republican rule (1649-60) different from the personal rule of Charles I
(1629-40)?
At first glance, the republican rule of 1649-60 may seem different from the personal rule of
Charles I from 1629-40, with the so-called ’11 Years Tyranny’ having a political system in
which a monarch was the head of the government, something republican rule didn’t
possess. However, when looking at the two periods in further depth, there are some
significant correlations, the most prominent being that Cromwell replaced Charles as king in
all but name. In both periods, the English political system undoubtedly remained frail and
required skilful management, something that both leaders tried, yet failed to fix. Both
Cromwell and Charles I never found complete stability in their somewhat abnormal periods
of rule. However, one of the clear contrasts remains that the republic was driven by
Cromwell’s passionate need for godly reformation.
One can draw a prominent similarity within the nature of both these governments. The
republic, like the personal rule, was similarly torn between the desire for stability and the
need for change. Both tried to create efficient and stable governments based on their own
political and religious beliefs, but in time, became paralysed by their inability to reconcile
these different forces. Despite this, during the personal rule, in order to govern without
parliament, Charles fell back on the judiciary to reinterpret the law to his advantage. He had
a very closed, centralised powered government consisting of himself, the privy council, the
house of lords, and he also used Prerogative courts. These included the Court of the
Exchequer, the Court of Chancery, and the Court of the Star Chamber. Charles’s court
increasingly came to represent a narrowing range of interests, this was partly a result of his
introverted character and also for his love of order and decorum. More seriously, Charles
and his court became increasingly isolated from the mainstream of contemporary religious,
intellectual, and cultural life. The policies pursued by Charles and his ministers were largely
unsuccessful, sometimes went unexplained and were consequently often misunderstood,
whereas the republic’s foreign policy was remarkably successful and dealt with financial
matters constructively. This introduces another stark difference between the two natures of
government. The republic’s government had a great breadth in the sense that it had very
de-centralised power, with the abolition of the monarchy, the house of lords, and the
establishment of a single-chamber parliament. The house of commons, by contrast, also
existed in a series of limited forms such as, the Rump, the Nominated Assembly, and
Protectorate parliaments during republican rule. Furthermore, with the Republic being
spearheaded by Cromwell, it in comparison, was far more tolerant than Charles’s
government during the personal rule, it tolerated a wide range of opinion in contrast to the
narrow-minded personal rule.
This toleration can be seen in the different approaches to religion in these periods. For
instance, during the personal rule there was a strict uniformity of religion through Charles’s
imposing of Laudianism, whereas during republican rule there was a significant freedom and
toleration within religion. For instance, Cromwell offered liberty of conscience to a broad
range of independent sects, whose members he sought to draw together in a united ‘godly
party’ and everything on the protestant spectrum was tolerated. The republic also had a
loosely organised national church within which people would have the freedom to find god
for themselves. It opened the door for a range of protestant groups to worship in a different
(1629-40)?
At first glance, the republican rule of 1649-60 may seem different from the personal rule of
Charles I from 1629-40, with the so-called ’11 Years Tyranny’ having a political system in
which a monarch was the head of the government, something republican rule didn’t
possess. However, when looking at the two periods in further depth, there are some
significant correlations, the most prominent being that Cromwell replaced Charles as king in
all but name. In both periods, the English political system undoubtedly remained frail and
required skilful management, something that both leaders tried, yet failed to fix. Both
Cromwell and Charles I never found complete stability in their somewhat abnormal periods
of rule. However, one of the clear contrasts remains that the republic was driven by
Cromwell’s passionate need for godly reformation.
One can draw a prominent similarity within the nature of both these governments. The
republic, like the personal rule, was similarly torn between the desire for stability and the
need for change. Both tried to create efficient and stable governments based on their own
political and religious beliefs, but in time, became paralysed by their inability to reconcile
these different forces. Despite this, during the personal rule, in order to govern without
parliament, Charles fell back on the judiciary to reinterpret the law to his advantage. He had
a very closed, centralised powered government consisting of himself, the privy council, the
house of lords, and he also used Prerogative courts. These included the Court of the
Exchequer, the Court of Chancery, and the Court of the Star Chamber. Charles’s court
increasingly came to represent a narrowing range of interests, this was partly a result of his
introverted character and also for his love of order and decorum. More seriously, Charles
and his court became increasingly isolated from the mainstream of contemporary religious,
intellectual, and cultural life. The policies pursued by Charles and his ministers were largely
unsuccessful, sometimes went unexplained and were consequently often misunderstood,
whereas the republic’s foreign policy was remarkably successful and dealt with financial
matters constructively. This introduces another stark difference between the two natures of
government. The republic’s government had a great breadth in the sense that it had very
de-centralised power, with the abolition of the monarchy, the house of lords, and the
establishment of a single-chamber parliament. The house of commons, by contrast, also
existed in a series of limited forms such as, the Rump, the Nominated Assembly, and
Protectorate parliaments during republican rule. Furthermore, with the Republic being
spearheaded by Cromwell, it in comparison, was far more tolerant than Charles’s
government during the personal rule, it tolerated a wide range of opinion in contrast to the
narrow-minded personal rule.
This toleration can be seen in the different approaches to religion in these periods. For
instance, during the personal rule there was a strict uniformity of religion through Charles’s
imposing of Laudianism, whereas during republican rule there was a significant freedom and
toleration within religion. For instance, Cromwell offered liberty of conscience to a broad
range of independent sects, whose members he sought to draw together in a united ‘godly
party’ and everything on the protestant spectrum was tolerated. The republic also had a
loosely organised national church within which people would have the freedom to find god
for themselves. It opened the door for a range of protestant groups to worship in a different
