After the dissolution of his Third Parliament in Charles I decided to rule without Parliament and thus continued to rule up to
Historical labelling of in this period reflects the differing interpretations of the extent of success the king achieved during the years To the Whig historians these were the "eleven years tyranny", a period of absolute government by an autocratic monarchy that ensured that England swiftly travelled down a 'high road to civil war.
However, having summoned a Parliament, the king felt understandably disappointed by lack of parliamentary support in financing the conflict.
Charles remained forever wary of equivocal parliamentary judgement, and his suspicions were further aroused by the events surrounding the death of his military commander, George Villiers the first Duke of Buckingham.
Even more annoying for the king, such financial affairs would often be frustrated by parliamentary demands for the redress of grievances. Between andCharles faced a series of early crisis in his reign. Conflict with France and Spain had caused numerous diplomatic and political problems and the cost of the war was depleting the royal coffers.
Revisionists would argue that Charles was prompted to establish a non-parliamentary government and create reforms in Church, State and society through fears of a collapse in authority and a disordered society. Individuals had previously been able to enter the royal residence and ask the king to personally address their grievances.
Therefore, rather than a successful attempt to install effective uniformed government, the personal rule could be viewed as an autocratic crusade for self-fulfilment and self-glorification.
The Book of Orders offered directives for "laws and statutes tending to the relief of the poor, the well-ordering and training up of youth in trades, and the reformation of disorders and disordered persons. Some poor children were aided in gaining apprenticeships and petty meetings were regularised; nevertheless, it is difficult to ascertain the true extent of co-operation from the localities.
Even Kevin Sharpe concedes that outward support could have concealed "diligent activity, grudging compliance, at times even outright resistance. In addition, the fact that the proclamation was issued several times suggests that some local officials were unwilling to yield to the royal policy, and although the king achieved what he wanted "it only served to make the court even more isolated from the wider world".
Nevertheless, although Charles deemed his fiscal measures a success, the policies induced bitter debates and resentment. John Pym would later argue the immoral connotations of the Knighthood fines, that they were "stretched for another end, for money," and Pym also complained that monopolies were such that "a burden is laid not only upon foreign but upon native commodities.
It has been claimed that the greatest success was the extension of ship money to the inland counties to cover the construction costs of a peacetime navy. However, although Charles had thought it imperative to maintain the strength of the English fleet, the problem was the levy was originally meant for wartime emergencies and traditionally from the coastal counties.
Charles bypassed the specific purpose of ship money and instigated a regular, annual tax that proved unpopular in the localities, due mainly to the difference in county ratings. John Pym was to declare that the annual and extended levy was "against all former precedents and laws.
However, inpeace was the immediate answer to the drain on the royal finances. Although Charles realised that he could not wage war without Parliamentary subsidies, the Crown could manage its budget more effectively in peacetime.
As David Smith notes, Charles I "began to cut his foreign policy to suit the cloth of non-parliamentary government" by concluding the Treaty of Susa with France in Apriland the Treaty of Madrid with Spain in November A peace lasted for eight years out of the eleven that constituted the personal rule, and in itself could be considered a relative success compared to the periods of conflict that preceded the royal government and the civil wars that followed on from Nevertheless, the king severely underestimated opposition to his Laudian policy and was woefully unprepared for the resistance he encountered.The Image of a King Charles I's obsession with kingship played an important role in his political career, motivating him to take liberties in spending and policy that he believed were granted to him by the title of king.
The period of the Personal Rule contributed to Charles' already lofty. - The Relationship of Charles I and the Parliament in In Charles I dismissed Parliament and forbade people to speak of calling another, this was the start of Personal Rule.
In the body of this essay the events and disputes that led to this situation will be explored fully. Oct 15, · This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue. Charles I called parliament in not because he'd suddenly changed his mind and favoured a Crown-parliament relationship, not because he considered personal rule a mistake, but because he had no choice.
Parliament was the only place that could sufficiently fund a . During the personal rule of Charles, he had two important advisers.
One of them was Thomas Wentworth who caninariojana.comd Earl of Strafford. The other was the Bishop of London, William Land, who was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in Nesh is a water filter system company in Malaysia, providing water dispenser, indoor water filter, and outdoor membrane filter for home and commercial use.