The downfall of the Personal Rule

what ended the personal rule...

HideShow resource information



The crisises that can be desrcibed as the ones that caused the end of the personal rule of Charles (1640) occured mainly in both Scotland and Ireland, and the events which were mainly because of Charles' strong ideas about religion and his advisers (that were seen as evil) changed history.

1 of 6

The Scottish Crisis - LAND

In 1625, charles had issued an ACT OF REVOCATION (cancelling all grants of royal land, and of church land made since 1540). This affected many Scottish Landowners (they were unsure whther they should be allowed to keep land that they thought was legally theirs.) Church land was an issue which split into religion (over religion). The land owners = saw themselves as rightful owners of land that had belonged to a church which had been swept awaaaaay, BUT they feared that if the church land returned it would turn into a rich strong church (again) <<< Roman Catholic model.

 The ACT OF REVOCATION also annoyed/scared the English genrty who had aquired church lands in the past.. like 100 years! They were worried that Charles might find some legal device to do the same thing in England. (and they knew Laud would have welcomed it!)

2 of 6

The Scottish Crisis - The prayer book rebellion

In 1633, Charles made his first visit to Scotland (Edinburgh) for the coronation, which he conducted with High-church Laudian ceremonial values - offending the veiw of the Scots! (But Laud, was determined to Bring Scotland's religion - presbyterian in line with England's.)By 1636, he had issued (Charles) for a Royal Proclomation to create new canons on conducting services (without refernece to the general Assembly of the Scottish Church!) In July 1637, Laud and Charles brought a new (1633) version of the English Prayer book to the scots - causing an uproar.1638, the Scottish National Convenant was brought up by the scots (rejecting canons and prayer book), & to Charles this was seen as Rebellion. Even though Charles made it seem he was "prepared to negotiate" he was actually preparing for war (sneaky) But 1638, the scottish decided to abolish Scottish national Convenant and also prepared for war (with a set of pro - well trained soliders who had fought in the thirty years war) < poor charles! Charles army, however was a lot different. (Poorly trained/not equipped) - as they had to be paid for by local tax. Gentry that controlled militia that charles had got 9perfect militia in 1628) didn't care much about whether they were efficient and did it more for status. and the "muster masters" who were supposed to train the army were just too expensive and drifted off! **The general feeling of England's army as they prepared for war, was that - they were poorly trained (didn't like marching out of their district and felt sympathy for the scots - who were fellow sufferers. After all, they were fighting for the Laudian prayer book - which they HATED!

3 of 6

The Scottish Crisis - The First Bishops' War 1639

1639 Charles spent £185,000 on military operations (while his commander = Earl of Arundel found himself not being able to launch a successful offensive! He also didn't improve the situation by riding to meet his troops in a coach lent by the papal nuncio with the papal coat of arms on it... this just said that "this is a papist war against honest protestants", so looked bad.) AGAIN charles, his adviser and ministers had mis understood "public opinion" The Earl Of Strafford was recalled from Ireland aswell but couldn't help the situation. And strafford stupidly 9probs because of his time in Ireland and being out of touch with England) advised the King to call parliament, expecting (stupidly) the parliament would vote money for an offensive to crush the rebellion of scotland, & be a way of the crown asserting itself. The city of london also had a poor relationship with him 9wouldn't lend ANY money).

Charles' situation: His miltary costs were HIGH and when he requested £100,000 from the city of london, he was obvs rejected with a £10,000 gift offered instead (haha!). When he called parliament, it wasn't because he had suddenly rejoiced the idea of a partnership between the two (who had been hostile for some while), and he wasn't regretting the personal rule either. He did call parliament because he had NO CHOICE. (only parliament could provide money for a war to assert royal authority in Scotland.... that they were failing.

4 of 6

The Short Parliament - April-May 1640

As you can see it did not last long and was a great dissappointment for Charles. (basically nobody trusted him anyway.) The MPS "we are reluctant to support a war against fellow Protestants who had rebelled against Laudianism (they all hated it?) They were against Laud and charles' EVIL ADVISERS and the roman catholic circle developing at court. All these people had influence over charles, and they didn't direct comments mainly at him. But they were not going to grant him with the 12 subsidies Charles had asked for even though he'd said "it's because of the abadonment of ship money yada yada"

SO the commons, led by Pym demanded that "greivances" be dealt with BEFORE all them susidies charles was begging for! So Laud "OH STUPID LAUD" just made things waaay worse and issued a new set of canons (1640 remember) with obvious support for divine right - what he strongly beleived in.

 The King rather than haggle/compromise with Parliament, was just like "oh no, I'm a snob" and dissolved it. This was after only 3 weeks, so in may 1640. This was STUPID STUPID, because now (even though there had been a little minority that were supportive of Charles in the short parliament) the attitudes of everyone in parliament just hardened

5 of 6

The Second Bishops' War - 1640

By July, charles was desperate and he confiscated bullion (silver and gold coinage) which he held in the tower of london for safe keeping by eng merchants. He did this so he could introduce a new scheme with copper mixed coins ... a silly scheme really that wouldn't help him. But he did hold onto 330,000 worth as a "loan". This really didn't help the already strained relationships with the city of London merchants.

 The failure of the short parliament was followed by the outbreak of fighting with the scots. At a skirmish (newcastle upon tyne), in august 1640 the English were BEATEN. So Scotland captured newcastle, cutting off Londone's VITAL coal supply and they also were able to occupy the SIX northern counties.

The war was ENDED by the "treaty of Ripon" in October 1640. << this was negotiated by the "council of peerd" and it was basically complete humiliation for Charles. The scots secured £850 to cover the costs of their occupation of Northumberlandand Durham, but also in effect, as their price for not moving further south. In these circumstances ... DEFEATED/NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE SCOTTISH OCCUPATION, charles literally had NO choice but to call another parliament and ask them to vote him subsidies.**Personal Rule had collapsed and Parliament was called in November 1640 (Long Parliament.)

6 of 6


No comments have yet been made

Similar History resources:

See all History resources »See all resources »