To what extent was the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament, in the years 1625 to 1629, due to the character and aims of Charles I?
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2021
Topic
The English Revolution
👑Complete Model Essay
To what extent was the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament, in the years 1625 to 1629, due to the character and aims of Charles I?
To what extent was the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament, in the years 1625 to 1629, due to the character and aims of Charles I?
The reign of Charles I (1625-1649) marked a tumultuous period in English history, characterized by a significant deterioration in the relationship between the Crown and Parliament. While factors such as financial strain, the influence of the Duke of Buckingham, and parliamentary radicalism undoubtedly played a role, the character and aims of Charles I were central to this decline. Charles's belief in the Divine Right of Kings, coupled with his autocratic tendencies and inability to compromise, created a chasm between him and Parliament that ultimately led to civil war.
Charles's Character and Aims: A Recipe for Conflict
Charles I's personality was ill-suited to the delicate balance of power between the monarchy and Parliament. He was deeply suspicious of Parliament, viewing its attempts to assert its authority as a challenge to his God-given right to rule. This distrust was exacerbated by his poor communication skills and inability to build bridges with his opponents. Charles's court was characterized by secrecy and intrigue, further alienating him from the broader political nation.
Moreover, Charles's overarching aim was to establish a more absolute monarchy, modeled on the example of his brother-in-law, Louis XIII of France. This ambition put him on a collision course with Parliament, which was determined to uphold its traditional rights and liberties. Charles's attempts to circumvent Parliament's control over taxation, particularly through the imposition of the Forced Loan, fueled resentment and suspicion.
Foreign Policy Blunders and Religious Tensions
Charles's foreign policy further strained relations with Parliament. His disastrous wars with Spain and France, driven by a desire to defend Protestant interests in Europe, proved costly and unpopular. Parliament resented being asked to foot the bill for these ill-conceived ventures, particularly when the king seemed unwilling to listen to their advice.
Religious tensions also played a significant role. Charles's marriage to the Catholic Henrietta Maria of France raised concerns about Catholic influence at court. His support for the Arminian faction within the Church of England, seen as dangerously close to Catholicism, further alienated Puritan members of Parliament. The appointment of William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 only exacerbated these fears. Laud's attempts to impose greater uniformity of worship were met with resistance, particularly in Puritan strongholds.
Parliamentary Obstruction or Legitimate Grievances?
Some historians argue that Parliament must bear some responsibility for the breakdown in relations. They point to parliamentary obstruction of Charles's policies, particularly in matters of finance. The refusal to grant adequate subsidies for the war effort, coupled with attacks on the unpopular Duke of Buckingham, undoubtedly frustrated the king.
However, it is important to note that Parliament's actions were often driven by genuine grievances. The imposition of the Forced Loan, the billeting of soldiers, and the arbitrary imprisonment of those who refused to pay were seen as violations of fundamental liberties. The Petition of Right (1628), which sought to curb the king's prerogative powers, was a direct response to these perceived abuses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while factors such as financial strain and parliamentary opposition played a role, the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament in the years 1625 to 1629 was primarily due to the character and aims of Charles I. His belief in the Divine Right of Kings, his autocratic tendencies, and his inability to compromise or communicate effectively created an insurmountable gulf between him and Parliament. Charles's foreign policy blunders and his support for Arminianism further inflamed tensions. While Parliament was not without its flaws, its resistance to Charles's policies was largely driven by a desire to uphold traditional liberties and to hold the king accountable. The events of this period laid the groundwork for the English Civil War, a testament to the profound impact of Charles's personality and ambitions on the course of English history.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
Essay Outline: To what extent was the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament, in the years 1625 to 1629, due to the character and aims of Charles I?
This essay will assess the extent to which Charles I’s character and aims were responsible for the deteriorating relationship with Parliament in the years 1625-1629. While Charles’ personality and policies undoubtedly contributed to the conflict, it is crucial to acknowledge other factors that played a significant role.
Argument: Charles I's Character and Aims
Thesis: Charles I’s character, particularly his belief in the Divine Right of Kings and his pursuit of uniformity, fueled his confrontational approach to Parliament. These traits, coupled with his inflexible nature, alienated Parliament and ultimately led to the breakdown of relations.
Evidence:
⭐Charles’ insistence on his prerogative, manifested in his refusal to compromise on issues like tonnage and poundage, the Forced Loan, and religious matters.
⭐His attempts to impose uniformity in religion, like the promotion of Laud’s Arminian policies, were met with resistance from Puritan members of Parliament.
⭐Charles’ inherent mistrust of Parliament, stemming from his belief in the King’s superior authority, hindered effective communication and negotiation.
Argument: Other Factors
Thesis: While Charles’ character and aims were critical, it is important to acknowledge other factors that contributed to the deteriorating relationship with Parliament.
Evidence:
⭐Financial constraints and disputes over taxation, including the issue of tonnage and poundage, strained relations.
⭐Buckingham’s unpopularity and perceived influence over Charles further fueled Parliament’s resentment.
⭐Parliament’s own radical tendencies, evident in the Petition of Right and the Five Knights’ Case, exacerbated the tensions.
⭐Parliamentary self-interest, driven by personal ambition and the desire to protect their own privileges, also played a role.
Conclusion
Thesis: While Charles I’s character and aims played a significant role in the deterioration of relations with Parliament, other factors, such as financial constraints, Buckingham’s influence, and Parliamentary radicalism, also contributed to the conflict. It is essential to understand the complex interplay of these factors in order to fully appreciate the breakdown of the relationship between Crown and Parliament.
Additional Notes:
⭐Consider using specific examples to illustrate the arguments.
⭐Analyze the motivations and actions of key figures like Charles I, Buckingham, and leading Parliamentarians.
⭐Engage with different interpretations of the events and consider the arguments of historians on both sides of the debate.
⭐Conclude with a clear and concise statement that summarizes your overall assessment of the extent to which Charles I’s character and aims were responsible for the deterioration in relations.
Remember to cite your sources and use appropriate academic style. This outline is meant to provide a framework for your essay; you can modify it according to your own research and arguments.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments Supporting the View that Charles I's Character and Aims Deteriorated Relations with Parliament (1625-1629)
Arguments supporting the view that the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament, in the years 1625 to 1629, was due to the character and aims of Charles I might include:
⭐In a time of Personal Monarchy, the character of Charles I was key in shaping the nature of Kingship from which all political and religious institutions and debates took their lead.
⭐Charles' character led to him overstressing his prerogative as a defensive reaction but this led to his escalating issues to more serious points of tension with Parliament, for example, over Montagu.
⭐Charles’ aims in foreign policy, specifically his war with Spain and reversal of policy with France, clearly had a negative impact on his relationship with Parliament.
⭐Charles’ aims in religion clearly had a negative impact on his relationship with Parliament. This can be seen in the Three Resolutions of 1629 or concern at Laud’s role in the opening of Parliament. It can also be seen in relation to undermining Buckingham’s attempts to establish links to potential opponents in Parliament through Warwick.
Arguments Challenging the View that Charles I's Character and Aims Deteriorated Relations with Parliament (1625-1629)
Arguments challenging the view that the deterioration in relations between Crown and Parliament, in the years 1625 to 1629, was due to the character and aims of Charles I might include:
⭐Finance was a factor in the deterioration of the relationship. This can be seen with issues over tonnage and poundage, debates over foreign policy costs, the Forced Loan and the Petition of Right.
⭐The role of Buckingham was a factor. This can be seen in concerns with regard to his position as favourite or, more specifically, his role at the York House Conference or as Lord High Admiral.
⭐Parliamentary radicalism had a role in damaging the relationship with the Crown. This can be seen in relation to the Five Knights’ Case or the Petition of Right, as well as the Three Resolutions. The idea of a Bill of Rights may also be raised.
⭐Parliamentary obstructiveness to subsidy requests, attacks on Buckingham or foreign policy could all be seen as examples of MPs being self-interested. They could be seen as being led by a minority of MPs rather than reflective of broader opinion. Reference to Charles I’s Declaration of March 1629 in relation to this could be used.
Conclusion
Students should argue that Charles’ character, in a time of Personal Monarchy, shaped his approach to Kingship. Charles’ character also shaped his aims. Some will stress that Charles’ inferiority complex drove him to provocatively overstress his Divine Right and prerogative. From this, his aim was for uniformity and conformity. His character did not allow him to communicate effectively with the Political Nation and Parliament could not function as an effective point of contact. There can also be stress on the concern and opposition to Charles’ policies being less important than his determination to impose them, derived from his character and aims that was at the heart of why he damaged his relationship with Parliament in the years 1625 to 1629.