1629-49: Charles I

Question 1

line of arg

Answer 1

• Charles was for most of the period isolated from parl, thus he used underhand and sneaky measures to maintain his power, and when he sat with parl, he was incredibly uncompromising and intransigent, and led to a breakdown of relations beyond reconciliation.
• Charles made it impossible for MPs to rule/work with him

Question 2

Personal Rule

Answer 2

PR- march 1629 to April 1640- refusal to work with/call parl led puritans to conclude the purpose of PR was to establish both Catholicism and absolutism → insensitive to parls concerns of catholicism
ALTHOUGH PARL DEFINITELY CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMPLETE FAILURE OF C-P RELATIONS, IT WAS STARTED BY CHARLES. WITHOUT PR, PARL WOULD NOT HAVE FELT THE NEED TO ATTACK CHARLES IN LONG PARL. THEY DID THIS/REDUCED HIS POWER MOST LIKELY DUE TO A FEAR OF CHARLES ISOLATING THEM AGAIN

Question 3

religion

Answer 3

CHARLES EXACERBATED A RELIGIOUS CONCERNS OVER CATHOLICISM- TURNED INTO RELIGIOUS FEARS.
1. general allowance of Laudiansim and the fact he also introduced this in Scotland. that created more conflict

2.Canons of 1640: 17 canon laws passed to give reassurance that Laudianim had “no suspicion of popery”. The first canon asserted the King ruled by Divine Right + so taxes must be paid - led MPs to conclude Charles was using CofE as a tool to est absolute monarchy.

3. The engagement with the scots - Dec 1647
   Charles signed this deal with the Scots to form an alliance to start the 2nd civil war.
   He would trail Presbyterianism for 3 years in England in return for an alliance with the Scots, who would help restore him to the throne
   He signed this whilst also considering the Four Bills, which was proposed by Parliament
   By signing with the Scots, this united everyone against Charles- massive error as they then had a clear aim to beat him

Question 4

conflict with parl

Answer 4

1. 5 members coup: jan. 1642: although charles was arguably not wrong to accuse Pym, Hampden, Haselrig, Holles and Strode, the manner he did this in created conflict. It undermined the growing impression that he could be trusted andthe use of force showed the danger charles posed if he had an army. It aslo contributed to beliefs that charles was at the centre of a Catholic plot
2. Fled to scotland aug-no 1641 w/o parl consent and made concessions: sept ‘41 he agreed Edinburgh parl should confirm his new choice of key officials
3. Charles would NOT compromise. he was offered subsidies in long parl as long as he listened to their grievances (which was fair) but he refused
4. refusal to accept a settlement radicalised the 3 groups of NMA, Indeps and PolPresbyt

Question 5

he was a cause of radicalisation of army

Answer 5

the longer charles avoided picking a settlement, the more radical +political the army got: in The Case of the Army, Truly Stated, Oct 1647: the main group within the army- levellers- starting positing that ‘all free-born Englishmen over the age of 21 should vote’ -ChI caused the situation to escalate!!
– + the heads of proposals (literally a post-war settlement)

Question 6

finance

Answer 6

• Ship Money = conflict
• recusancy fines= conflict bc led parl to believe Charles was trying to use religion a a tool for absolutism

Question 7

fool

Answer 7

• his imposition of laudianism in Scotland provoked opposition, which also led Charles to fight in the Bishops’ wars, which paved the way for the CW, which led to his demise.