OCR Specification focus:
‘James I and Divine Right; inherited financial problems, extravagance and financial disputes.’
James I’s early reign exposed deep tensions between monarchy and Parliament. His belief in Divine Right, combined with financial irresponsibility, quickly caused disputes over money and authority.
James I and the Divine Right of Kings
The Theory of Divine Right
James I, formerly James VI of Scotland, brought with him strong views on Divine Right monarchy.
Title page of James VI & I’s The True Lawe of Free Monarchies (1598; London ed. 1603). The tract sets out an absolutist view of kingship and the monarch’s accountability to God alone. This visual anchors the doctrinal basis of James’s political stance. Source
Divine Right of Kings: The belief that monarchs derive their authority directly from God, making them accountable only to Him and not to earthly institutions such as Parliament.
This doctrine shaped James’s political outlook. He believed subjects owed him absolute obedience, and his speeches to Parliament often emphasised his role as “God’s lieutenant on earth.” Such attitudes conflicted with English traditions of parliamentary consent and common law, fuelling mistrust between Crown and Commons.
Implications for Parliament
James expected deference to royal authority, seeing challenges as acts of disobedience.
Parliament, however, believed it had a role in approving taxation and scrutinising policy.
This clash over the scope of royal prerogative underpinned later financial and political disputes.
James I’s Inherited Financial Problems
Structural Weaknesses
On his accession in 1603, James inherited longstanding weaknesses in royal finance. The Tudor monarchy had relied heavily on:
Customs duties and feudal dues (traditional sources of income).
Occasional parliamentary subsidies for extraordinary expenses such as war.
By 1603, inflation had eroded the value of fixed revenues. Crown expenditure consistently outpaced income, leaving the monarchy reliant on loans and subsidies.
Elizabethan Legacy
James inherited a debt of roughly £400,000 from Elizabeth I’s reign. While Elizabeth had been frugal, her methods of cutting corners, such as selling off Crown lands, weakened long-term revenue streams. James faced the challenge of sustaining government without secure financial foundations.
Royal Extravagance
James’s Spending Habits
James quickly developed a reputation for extravagance.
Inventory of gifts distributed by James I in 1603, recording expensive jewels and cash grants to favoured recipients. Such patronage strained limited revenues and shaped Parliament’s view that subsidies would be squandered. The document includes monetary details that go beyond the syllabus narrative, but these figures clarify what “extravagance” looked like in practice. Source
His generous patronage of courtiers and favourites drained the treasury. He frequently bestowed gifts, titles, and pensions, often in excess:
Lavish spending on royal households.
Frequent granting of lands and monopolies.
Extravagant court entertainments, such as masques, which symbolised magnificence but strained finances.
This contrasted with Elizabeth I, whose frugality had been central to her popularity. James’s generosity, while designed to secure loyalty, deepened financial instability.
Court Culture
The king’s Scottish courtiers attracted criticism in England. They were seen as sycophantic and parasitic, enriching themselves at the nation’s expense. The image of a wasteful king surrounded by greedy favourites became a recurring theme in parliamentary debates.
Financial Disputes with Parliament
Parliamentary Tensions
Parliament expected the Crown to live “of its own” — managing ordinary government expenditure without relying on extraordinary subsidies. James’s constant requests for money appeared evidence of mismanagement and waste.
When Parliament questioned the king’s spending, James invoked Divine Right arguments, claiming financial independence. This widened distrust:
MPs wanted greater accountability for how subsidies were spent.
James resisted, fearing it threatened monarchical authority.
Crown’s Search for Revenue
To bridge deficits, James turned to measures that angered Parliament:
Commission authorising a revised Book of Rates (5 September 1610), listing customs duties on imports. The measure expanded impositions to boost ordinary revenue without parliamentary consent. This exemplifies why MPs challenged the Crown’s fiscal expedients and demanded oversight. Source
Impositions: customs duties levied without parliamentary approval, justified by royal prerogative.
Monopolies: grants giving individuals control over industries in return for fees.
Sale of honours and titles: new peerages created for profit, devaluing the nobility.
Each method raised short-term revenue but generated resentment and damaged trust.
Conflict over Subsidies
Parliament, suspicious of James’s extravagance, often refused to grant adequate subsidies. MPs feared money would be squandered on court favourites or foreign policy they opposed. This deadlock entrenched financial disputes as a central theme of the reign.
Consequences of James’s Financial Policies
Political Impact
Financial disputes highlighted the constitutional tensions of the early Stuart monarchy:
Parliament saw itself as the guardian of the nation’s resources.
James viewed demands for financial oversight as an infringement of royal authority.
Disputes over money became disputes over power, laying foundations for later conflicts.
Social Impact
The Crown’s reliance on impositions and the sale of honours disrupted traditional structures:
Merchants resented new duties on trade.
Established nobility saw their status diminished by the sale of titles.
Ordinary taxpayers grew weary of fiscal demands in times of peace.
Economic Consequences
James’s inability to reform finances created a cycle of short-term expedients and growing debt. By 1621, the Crown’s debts had reached approximately £900,000, reflecting chronic imbalance between revenue and expenditure.
Key Themes for Study
Divine Right versus Parliamentary Tradition
James’s insistence on absolute monarchy clashed with England’s tradition of parliamentary financial control. These disputes shaped the political culture of the early Stuart period.
The Image of Extravagance
James’s personal spending habits, though culturally significant, damaged his reputation. His perceived indulgence undermined trust with Parliament and alienated political opinion.
The Financial Crisis
Inherited debt, inflation, and structural weaknesses combined with royal extravagance to create persistent disputes over money. These disputes were not merely financial but deeply political, symbolising the struggle between royal prerogative and parliamentary privilege.
FAQ
In Scotland, James had grown up under the influence of a powerful nobility and the Presbyterian Kirk, both of which restricted royal authority.
On becoming king of England, he encountered a comparatively stronger monarchy and an established episcopal Church. This gave him the confidence to articulate Divine Right more assertively.
His English speeches to Parliament often underlined royal supremacy because he sought to remind MPs of their subordination to the monarch, unlike in Scotland where he had to compromise more frequently.
Elizabeth I had been frugal, carefully balancing patronage with financial restraint. She sold some Crown lands and tightly controlled court expenditure.
James I, however, was notorious for large-scale gift-giving and for creating new titles in return for money.
Elizabeth’s spending focused on political necessity and image.
James’s spending reflected generosity, ostentation, and favouritism, which appeared excessive in comparison.
This contrast sharpened Parliament’s criticism of his financial irresponsibility.
The Tudor-Stuart period experienced steady inflation, which eroded the real value of fixed Crown revenues such as rents and traditional dues.
While ordinary government costs rose, James’s revenues did not increase in proportion. Subsidies granted by Parliament seemed increasingly inadequate, forcing the Crown to seek other income sources.
Parliament, however, interpreted these shortfalls as evidence of extravagance rather than structural economic pressures, worsening mistrust between the two sides.
Impositions were customs duties imposed by the Crown without parliamentary approval, justified by prerogative powers.
They were controversial because:
They directly affected merchants, raising costs of imports.
MPs viewed them as taxation without their consent, undermining their traditional role.
The Crown became less dependent on Parliament for revenue, threatening parliamentary influence.
Thus, impositions were not just a financial tool but a constitutional flashpoint.
James I’s sale of honours and peerages diluted the prestige of the traditional nobility. Long-established families resented the influx of “new men” purchasing status.
At the same time, lavish patronage fuelled competition among courtiers, with Scottish favourites resented for receiving disproportionate rewards.
These practices undermined traditional hierarchies and generated friction between the monarch and his natural allies in the aristocracy, reducing his political capital at court.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
What is meant by the term Divine Right of Kings?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying that it is the belief that monarchs derive authority directly from God.
1 mark for noting that this means they are accountable only to God and not to Parliament or their subjects.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain two reasons why James I’s financial policies caused disputes with Parliament in the early years of his reign.
Mark Scheme:
Up to 3 marks per reason explained.
1 mark for identifying a relevant reason (e.g., extravagance, impositions, monopolies, sale of honours).
1–2 marks for further explanation of why this caused disputes with Parliament.
Examples:
Extravagance: James’s excessive spending on favourites and court entertainments led MPs to distrust his financial management, making them reluctant to grant subsidies. (Up to 3 marks)
Impositions: By raising customs duties without parliamentary consent, James angered MPs who viewed this as bypassing their traditional right to approve taxation. (Up to 3 marks)
