‘Charles I - Right or Wrong?

’
Charles I, who ruled Great Britain and Ireland between 1625 and 1649, was infamous for his
frequent quarrels with Parliament. He ignored and continued to dissolve Parliament from
the very outset of his reign. He introduced several unpopular religious reforms that made
Protestants suspicious of a return to Catholicism, and, to make matters worse, he was
married to a Catholic, Henrietta Maria. He insulted Parliament’s Grand Remonstrance, and
eventually tried to arrest five MPs in January 1642. These injudicious moves eventually led
to the English Civil War in 1642, where Royalists and Parliamentarians fought to the death.

Certainly it can be argued that Charles I was wrong to believe that he was above
Parliament’s jurisdiction. From the point at which Charles I came to power, it was clear that
his relationship with Parliament would be fractious. In 1629, Charles dismissed his MPs after
they presented him with the Petition of Right. The Petition of Right protested that the
Magna Carta (written in 1215) proved that it was not right for Charles to raise taxes without
Parliament’s permission, and then imprison those who refused to pay. Unfortunately,
Charles refused to agree to this, because he believed in the Divine Right of Kings (full
authority over the country, which is said to be given to the King - the Chosen One - by God).
He therefore felt he had no reason to listen to the MPs. Had Charles I not advocated this,
perhaps his relationship with Parliament would have improved, and the ensuing tension
would thus not have escalated as it did.

It can also be argued that Charles I was wrong to make pronounced steps towards
Catholicism. Certainly he would have had many less enemies in the eventual English Civil
War. In the eleven-year period of ‘Personal Rule’, when Charles clearly refused to listen to
Parliament, he made many controversial religious reforms in Churches, such as replacing
altars, making priests wear decorated vestments, and requiring parishioners to kneel to
receive sacraments. Many Protestants saw these reforms as a return to Catholicism. This
thought was also underlined by the fact that Charles was married to a Catholic, Henrietta
Maria. Many believed that, as Head of the Church and ‘Upholder of the Faith’, Charles I was
supposed to encourage and support the country’s religion. However, it became clear that,
as Head of the Church, Charles I could make whatever religious reforms he wanted,
regardless of their appropriateness or popularity. Fuelling this further was the Bishops’ War
in Scotland of 1638, following Charles’ attempt to introduce a new Prayer Book in 1637. This
war depleted the King’s treasury, one of the many disadvantages of his taking obvious
moves towards Catholicism. There was also a rebellion in Ireland in 1641, when Catholics
massacred many Protestant settlers. Rumours circulated that this was the start of a Catholic
plot, and that the King himself was supporting it, giving Charles I an increasingly tenuous
position of power.

Additionally, Charles I was wrong to introduce many contentious taxes. As Charles no longer
had the support of Parliament, he could not call on them to raise taxes to cover his loss of
treasury. Therefore, he instead enforced new and harsher methods to procure money. In
1634, he had imposed a tax called ‘Ship Money’, which had originally been used only for
coastal communities to supply the navy. Charles I now extended this to the entire country.
William Prynne, the very first to rebel against this tax, argued against it, saying the tax was
illegal because it had not been agreed by Parliament. John Hampden, the next rebel, went
so far as to refuse to pay the ‘Ship Money’, saying that it was unlawful as well. He was taken
to court in 1637, and although the judges voted 7 to 5 in the King’s favour, it was clear that
Charles I’s authority had now been challenged. Gradually, more and more people would
oppose Charles’ taxes. It soon became common for people to avoid paying his taxes
altogether. Had Charles I worked with Parliament, this may never have happened.

Finally, it can be argued that, when Charles I ran out of money and became truly desperate,
he should not have contravened Parliament regarding the Grand Remonstrance and tried to
arrest five MPs. In his hopeless situation, Charles I called on Parliament again in 1640.
However, after eleven years of being completely ignored by Charles I, the MPs were
unwilling to help, so Charles I dismissed this parliament three weeks later. After yet another
military defeat, he called another Parliament - known as the ‘Long Parliament’ - which lasted
until 1653. This Parliament refused to give Charles any money, and then introduced ‘The
Grand Remonstrance’, which was a long list of complaints about Charles’ deeds in the past
years. Parliament did not blame Charles directly, but instead blamed his evil counsellors
(such as Lord Buckingham). Charles rejected the claims of Parliament and called the list
‘unparliamentary’. The relationship between Parliament and Charles was unsurprisingly
tense. The Irish rebellion in 1641 cost Charles yet more money and popularity; Parliament
disagreed with Charles about who should lead the army that was to be sent to Ireland.
Charles I then left London, after attempting to arrest five opposing MPs. This was a bad idea,
because it now became clear that he was planning to sabotage Parliament in some way. It
would surely have been wiser for Charles I to have accepted his mistakes, and agreed to
work with Parliament again. Instead, it is strongly arguable that he made the English Civil
War more likely by criticising this list.

In conclusion, Charles I made many poor decisions throughout his reign, and can be seen to
have been wrong in many of these. In the main, he was wrong because he refused to listen
to Parliament, which led to a chain of events and finally led to his own death.