Religious tensions, foreign policy failures, and Charles I’s authoritarian style quickly destabilised early Stuart rule, laying crucial groundwork for civil war.
Religious Divisions Inherited from James I
Anglicanism vs Puritanism
James I left a deeply divided religious landscape. Although the Church of England (Anglican Church) was the official national church, it was challenged by groups pushing for further reform.
Anglicans supported the established Church with bishops and ceremonial worship.
Puritans, a significant and vocal minority, sought to purify the Church of lingering Catholic elements, favouring simpler worship and governance by elders rather than bishops.
This division created persistent unrest within both church and state, as Puritan MPs pushed for reforms that the monarchy resisted.
Fear of Catholic Influence
Despite the Anglican establishment, many within England remained anxious about a resurgence of Catholicism. This fear was heightened by:
James I’s attempts to marry his son Charles to a Catholic Spanish princess.
Continued Catholic presence among the gentry.
Rising suspicion that court policies favoured Arminians, seen as crypto-Catholics.
These anxieties carried into Charles’s reign, especially after his marriage to Henrietta Maria, a French Catholic princess.
Millenary Petition and Hampton Court Conference
In 1603, Puritan ministers presented James I with the Millenary Petition, requesting reforms to eliminate Catholic practices.
This led to the Hampton Court Conference (1604) where James I rejected most Puritan demands but did authorise a new Bible translation—the King James Bible (1611).
However, deeper reforms were denied, solidifying divisions and ensuring that religious disputes would remain unresolved into Charles I’s reign.
Relations with Parliament
Financial Grievances
Parliament held the power to grant subsidies (taxation), which monarchs required to fund wars and court expenses. Under James I, financial tensions grew due to:
Lavish royal spending.
The use of monopolies, which allowed individuals to control trade and charge inflated prices in return for payments to the Crown.
Charles I inherited these financial strains and quickly exacerbated them.
Subsidies and Monopolies
Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles subsidies without assurances of reform.
Charles, facing a cash shortfall, resorted to granting further monopolies and collecting customs duties without parliamentary consent.
He also employed forced loans, demanding money from subjects under threat of imprisonment.
This authoritarian fiscal policy alienated the political nation—the landed elite who dominated Parliament.
Tensions over Foreign Policy: Thirty Years’ War
Parliament supported military intervention on behalf of Protestant forces in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), especially to defend the Protestant Palatinate (Charles’s brother-in-law’s territory). However, they disagreed with:
The ineffectiveness of military campaigns.
The wastefulness of funds.
The influence of Buckingham, who oversaw disastrous expeditions (see below).
These failures sparked growing frustration within Parliament and increased its assertiveness in challenging royal decisions.
Charles I’s Character and Court
Promotion of Divine Right
Charles I was a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings—the idea that monarchs were answerable only to God, not to earthly institutions like Parliament. This:
Reinforced his authoritarian instincts.
Reduced his willingness to compromise.
Contributed to a style of governance that alienated Parliament and many of his subjects.
Isolation from the Political Nation
Charles’s reclusive personality and preference for court culture distanced him from:
The gentry, who felt shut out of influence.
Parliament, whose advice he increasingly ignored.
He created a closed royal court, filled with favourites and advisors such as Buckingham, which bred resentment and suspicion.
Catholic Sympathies of Queen Henrietta Maria
Charles’s marriage to Henrietta Maria of France (1625) alarmed Protestants:
She maintained a private Catholic chapel, which was seen as provocative.
Her influence led to fears of Catholic infiltration at court.
Parliament was deeply sceptical, viewing the Queen as a symbol of a broader Catholic threat.
This further intensified the religious divide and added to the mistrust between Crown and Parliament.
The Role of Buckingham
Influence over Foreign and Domestic Policy
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, had been James I’s favourite and continued to dominate court politics under Charles. His control over:
Foreign policy (especially military expeditions),
Patronage and court appointments,
Royal influence—
meant he became a lightning rod for parliamentary criticism.
Failures at Cádiz and La Rochelle
Cádiz Expedition (1625): A failed naval attack on Spain, marked by poor planning and drunken soldiers. It was a military and financial disaster.
La Rochelle Expedition (1627): An effort to support French Huguenots that ended in failure and heavy losses, further humiliating the Crown.
These campaigns—both backed by Buckingham—confirmed Parliament’s view that royal advisors were incompetent and dangerous.
Assassination in 1628
After years of mounting criticism, Buckingham was assassinated by disgruntled soldier John Felton.
While Charles mourned deeply, much of the public and Parliament celebrated his death.
Buckingham’s assassination removed a key figure of contention but left Charles more isolated and entrenched in his autocratic tendencies.
Parliamentary Radicalism
The Petition of Right (1628)
Causes:
Parliament grew increasingly concerned by Charles’s collection of forced loans, billeting of troops, and arbitrary imprisonments.
MPs sought to reassert the rule of law and prevent future abuse.
Demands:
No taxation without parliamentary consent.
No imprisonment without due cause.
No forced billeting of soldiers in private homes.
No use of martial law in peacetime.
Consequences:
Charles initially agreed to the Petition to secure funds.
However, he later ignored its principles, continuing to collect tonnage and poundage without parliamentary approval.
This deepened the constitutional crisis and reinforced fears that Charles sought to govern without Parliament altogether.
Conflict Over Tonnage and Poundage
Tonnage and poundage were traditional customs duties levied on imports and exports.
Parliament typically granted these to monarchs for life—but in 1625, they granted them only for one year, to assert control.
Charles ignored this limitation, collecting duties unilaterally.
This act was seen as a direct breach of parliamentary authority, fuelling accusations of tyranny.
Dissolution of Parliament and Move Toward Personal Rule
1629 Dissolution
Frustrated by mounting criticism and defiance within Parliament, Charles dissolved Parliament in March 1629. This marked a critical moment:
Charles resolved to rule without Parliament, beginning what would become known as the Personal Rule (1629–1640).
He arrested key MPs involved in opposing him, including Sir John Eliot, escalating tensions.
Consequences
The dissolution marked a constitutional turning point, as the King sidelined the institution that traditionally checked royal power.
It sparked widespread concern over the future of liberty and Protestantism.
The Personal Rule would see Charles attempt to govern through prerogative powers alone, setting the stage for future conflict.
This period (1625–1629) laid the essential groundwork for civil war, exposing and intensifying the fault lines in religion, politics, and the constitution that would erupt in later years.
FAQ
Charles I’s open support for Arminianism caused deep unease among a political nation already suspicious of Catholic influence. Arminianism emphasised ceremony, hierarchy, and royal authority within the Church, which sharply contrasted with Puritan desires for a more simplified, Scripture-focused religion. Key figures like Richard Montagu and William Laud were promoted by Charles, despite their controversial views. Parliament saw this as a deliberate favouring of High Church practices and feared it was part of a broader strategy to undermine Protestantism and align with Catholic powers. Arminianism’s association with obedience and deference to monarchy further fed concerns that Charles was using religion to justify absolutist tendencies. The growing prominence of Arminians in court and church positions alienated Puritan MPs, who viewed the trend as a betrayal of the Protestant cause. By 1629, religious discontent was deeply entangled with political anxieties, fuelling broader fears about the direction of Charles’s rule.
The collapse of the Spanish Match in 1623, during Charles’s and Buckingham’s failed trip to Madrid, had profound consequences for Charles’s domestic and foreign policy. Though initially popular in England—because it avoided an alliance with Catholic Spain—the failure hardened Charles’s resolve to act independently from Parliament. He blamed MPs for undermining his diplomatic efforts by voicing strong anti-Catholic sentiments. This episode marked a turning point where Charles and Buckingham became increasingly distrustful of parliamentary influence. Furthermore, the rejection deepened Charles’s hostility toward Spain, prompting him to pursue military intervention in the Thirty Years’ War, which Parliament supported in principle but criticised in practice due to its cost and execution. When war was declared, Parliament was unwilling to fund it fully, leading to disputes over subsidies. Thus, the failed alliance not only ruined diplomatic relations but also worsened tensions between Crown and Parliament, embedding mutual suspicion from the start of Charles’s reign.
Traditionally, English monarchs were granted the right to collect tonnage and poundage for life upon accession. However, in 1625, Parliament broke with precedent and granted Charles this income for only one year. This move was not merely financial—it was a political challenge. MPs wanted to use the grant as leverage to influence foreign policy and to express dissatisfaction with Charles’s reliance on Buckingham. The restriction was designed to force further dialogue between Parliament and the Crown. Charles, however, took this as an affront to royal authority and continued collecting the duties without consent, arguing it was a customary royal right. This led to a constitutional crisis, as Parliament viewed it as a violation of the law and a deliberate act of defiance. The issue became symbolic of Charles’s broader refusal to acknowledge parliamentary privileges and played a crucial role in escalating tensions that culminated in the 1629 dissolution.
Buckingham’s assassination in 1628 by John Felton was a watershed moment. Though Charles I mourned deeply, the public reaction revealed the scale of hostility toward the Duke. Crowds celebrated his death, viewing him as the architect of failed foreign policy and court corruption. Politically, his death removed the primary target of parliamentary criticism, but it did not improve Crown-Parliament relations. Instead, it made Charles more withdrawn and distrustful. He believed Buckingham had been a loyal servant and saw Felton’s actions—and public glee—as evidence of wider disloyalty and rebellion. Moreover, Parliament lost a unifying figure around which they had channelled their grievances, forcing them to confront Charles’s personal role in policy decisions more directly. Buckingham’s assassination thus hardened divisions: Charles became more absolutist, and MPs more determined to resist what they saw as tyranny. It intensified Charles’s belief that he could not trust the political nation, paving the way for his Personal Rule.
Charles’s suppression of dissent in 1629 exemplified his absolutist leanings and belief in the Divine Right of Kings. When Parliament tried to assert its right to control taxation and resist the rise of Arminianism, Charles responded not with negotiation but with repression. He had the Speaker physically restrained in his chair so MPs could pass key resolutions, including condemning illegal taxation and religious innovation. Afterward, Charles dissolved Parliament and imprisoned leading critics like Sir John Eliot without trial. This act was a clear rejection of parliamentary privilege and legal tradition. His decision to rule without Parliament for the next eleven years—what became the Personal Rule—reflected a conviction that monarchy should not be subject to scrutiny or constraint by representative institutions. It also demonstrated a deep aversion to compromise. Charles believed his authority was divinely ordained, and he interpreted opposition not as legitimate political disagreement but as rebellion against God’s chosen ruler.
Practice Questions
To what extent was religion the main cause of conflict between Crown and Parliament in the years 1625–1629?
While religion was a significant cause of conflict—particularly fears over Catholic influence and Charles I’s marriage to Henrietta Maria—political and financial issues played a greater role. Parliament’s opposition to Charles’s collection of tonnage and poundage, as well as his use of forced loans, heightened tensions. The Petition of Right (1628) exemplified parliamentary concern over civil liberties and taxation. Additionally, Buckingham’s failures in foreign policy alienated MPs. Religion exacerbated fears, but it was the Crown’s disregard for parliamentary authority and constitutional norms that most fundamentally drove the breakdown in relations by 1629.
How important was the role of Buckingham in the deterioration of relations between Crown and Parliament between 1625 and 1629?
Buckingham’s influence was a major factor in worsening relations, particularly due to his role in failed military expeditions such as Cádiz and La Rochelle. Parliament blamed him for poor leadership and mismanagement, and his dominance at court symbolised the Crown’s disregard for political advice. However, tensions also stemmed from Charles I’s belief in the Divine Right of Kings, his financial demands, and the handling of the Petition of Right. While Buckingham catalysed discontent and provided a focal point for criticism, deeper constitutional and financial grievances were equally, if not more, important in deteriorating relations.
