How far were the aims and methods of Charles I’s Personal rule justifiable?? Essay Example

into effect. Instead out of Charles' desperate struggle for money emerged a coercive underhand administration where technically legal policies were adopted. Charles may have thought these justifiable at the time, but unbeknown to him would later bring about his downfall as he bankrupted and frustrated many nobles and gentry whose support he would later need.However one area of Thorough was indeed coined by Charles, that of re-introducing old medieval laws that were not new but had merely been neglected.

This procedure called Fiscal Feudalism aggravated the people from the upper to lower classes. It began with distraint of Knighthoods where it was discovered that those who owned land worth �40 or more per annum were entitled to be knighted. Charles of course ensured that this privilege was paid for and if it was refused the gentry in question were duly fined. The landed gentry were again badly treated by Charles when he re-established forest fines, where those who had homes in the old King's forests had to pay rent even if they had legitimately bought the land.

Court offices were also sold along with gentry being fined for being in London. This was an old law used to stop landed gentry allowing their land to become damaged while away and to protect the interests of the workers. The re-introduction of old laws such as these could not be completely justified, however it was deemed necessary by Charles and his advisors in order for the country to be governed appropriately and for the monarchy to survive. It was technically legal although the damage he was doing to his relationship with the upper class was irreversible.The middle

lower and working class were also hit hard by Charles' need for money. The most controversial of these taxes was the collection of ship money from inland areas as well as coastal towns, it also became an annual tax whereas it had usually only been collected during times of war.

John Hapton tried a test case, he lost when it was said "Defence is a matter for all and should be paid by all." However there was popular support for him showing that the people thought Charles was being unreasonable and his actions unjustifiable, despite it being legal.To add to this monopolies were placed on products such as salt, which was of uttermost importance in order to keep meats fresh. This combined with the already spiralling high prices due to increased population and poor agriculture led to bad blood between the people and their king.Probably Charles' most justified aim was to keep an inexpensive foreign policy although he didn't necessarily do it for the right reason. He reasoned, as long as England was at peace, he need not call Parliament.

His methods in doing this were reasonably acceptable; he made sure that England didn't get involved in any wars, especially not in the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants in Europe. Instead he saw himself as the peacemaker and on numerous occasions attempted peace talks with the fighting nations.The most costly mistakes during Charles' time of personal rule came about due to religion. This had always been a tricky situation in the past but at this particular time in history it was even worse. Charles was a Presbyterian King in charge of three different

countries with three different religions (Catholic, Protestant and Presbyterian) to add to this he was head of the Protestant Church in England despite his Arminian tendencies and his Catholic wife.

It was very complicated, and not helped by the appointment of William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury. The awe and wonder (similar to that of the Catholic Church) was slowly introduced into the Church of England by Charles and Laud as well as the elevation of the clergy and an increased emphasis on the mass and the altar being sacred.Later in 1637 Charles took what he thought would be a step towards greater conformity between the Churches of England and Scotland by introducing the English prayer book into the Scottish Church. He thought this to be an incentive. It wasn't, far from it, in fact instead there were riots and The National covenant was signed placing religion before loyalty to the king.

This eventually led to the recalling of Parliament in 1640 after the Scots declared war. At this time Thomas Wentworth advised Charles to let him mount an Irish Catholic army to defeat the Scots. Fortunately Charles didn't take this advice, which would have caused outcry in England. Wentworth was later used as a scapegoat by parliament and executed in 1941. In my opinion Charles was far from being justified in attempting to bring about changes in the Scottish Church particularly as it took him over five years to find the time for his coronation.In truth some of Charles' aims were justifiable despite them being made out of anger, however some were just selfish and had a lot to do with pride.

He was

King and wanted to show Parliament that he didn't need their help to govern his kingdom. Charles in fact did set out with the best of intentions unfortunately he had neither the know how, nor the leadership to devise the best methods in which to achieve his goals. He was also a bad judge of character and continually surrounded himself with incompetent and stubborn advisors such as Laud and Wentworth. Although the people thought Charles to be unjustifiable in his actions he was indeed king and therefore he had the power and authority to do what he thought best in the interests of his country.

To conclude, in my opinion Charles did not need to justify himself to the people or even parliament only to himself.