How Successful was the Personal Rule of 1629–37? (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
How Successful was the Personal Rule of 1629–37?
Introduction to the Personal Rule
In 1629 Charles I took the decision to rule without Parliament, declaring he would summon no more parliaments until his subjects understood him better. This period, known as the Personal Rule, lasted from 1629 to 1640. By 1637, Charles's financial and religious policies had convinced some observers that he aimed to establish absolute power. Historians remain divided on whether the Personal Rule achieved its objectives or whether it sowed the seeds of political breakdown.
The Personal Rule represents one of the most controversial periods in English constitutional history. Understanding Charles's intentions and the reactions they provoked is crucial to explaining the outbreak of civil war in 1642.
Did Charles intend to create absolute monarchy?
The question of Charles's ultimate aims remains contested. Evidence exists on both sides. In 1649, facing execution at the hands of a parliamentary faction, Charles wrote to his son advising him to avoid falling in love with parliaments, which he described as existing 'in their right constitution' as mainstays of monarchy. Given that Charles had chosen martyrdom and regarded this as his final advice to his successor, it appears unlikely he would deliberately mislead. This evidence suggests parliaments held an accepted place in his constitutional thinking, contradicting any absolutist ambitions or deliberate plan to destroy Parliament as an institution.
The Nature of Absolute Monarchy
Absolute monarchy involves several defining characteristics drawn from continental models:
- Concentration of legal powers in royal hands
- Reduction of local independence to strengthen central authority
- Establishment of a professional bureaucracy funded by a financially independent king
Charles made surprisingly few changes to governmental structures during the Personal Rule that matched these features.
Charles called no parliaments and exercised power over local interests through prerogative courts and councils, raising unparliamentary taxes to finance his government. However, only in the final years of the period did he attempt to exercise new powers or greatly extend existing ones.
Ship Money provides an instructive example. Charles's extension of this tax could be seen as no more revolutionary than James I's use of impositions to extend customs duties between 1606 and 1608. The hallmark of Charles's government appears to have been attention to detail and efforts to make the existing system more effective, rather than exploiting existing revenue sources more completely. The time and energy devoted to making the system work was considerable. Had a coherent plan existed to destroy parliaments and establish absolute monarchy, more time would have been devoted to creating a standing army and a system of salaried officials—neither of which materialized.
Charles's vision of monarchy and the royal court
If Charles did not plan to create absolutism, what were his actual objectives? Clues emerge from examining the nature of his court and the image of monarchy he sought to establish. The royal court served as the heart of government, the centre of society, and the pinnacle of the social hierarchy on which government rested. The court's style and conduct reflected the personality and aims of the monarch who shaped it.
Where Elizabeth I and her father had created public magnificence, and James I permitted licence and indulgence, Charles sought dignified formality. Access to the monarch became limited and strictly regulated according to rank. Ceremonies received careful staging, often conducted at Windsor away from public view. A strict code governed behaviour, and entertainments took the form of plays and masques in which the King and Queen sometimes appeared in symbolic roles to restore order and end confusion.
Charles envisioned himself as reserved, dignified, aloof and personally chaste. He attempted to shape the monarchy and kingdom according to this self-image. Contemporary Lucy Hutchinson, though fiercely Puritan, recognized some of his qualities:
Contemporary Assessment of Charles I
'King Charles was temperate, chaste and serious; so that the fools and bawds of the former court grew out of fashion… Men of learning and ingenuity in all the arts were in esteem and receiving encouragement from the King, who was a most excellent judge and a great lover of paintings.'
— Lucy Hutchinson
This assessment reveals Charles's understanding of monarchy and symbolizes what he attempted to achieve across all aspects of government. Administration should operate efficiently and in well-ordered fashion. The Church should be beautified and dignified through ceremony. Hierarchy demanded upholding by insisting on respect for rank among bishops in the Church and nobility in the State. At the head of both stood the King, his authority accepted and exercised for his people's benefit. The outcome would be peace and harmony—a well-oiled machine with all parts functioning properly.
Causes of opposition during the Personal Rule
Given this vision, explaining why such aims provoked substantial opposition within a governing class that shared the King's belief in hierarchy and order becomes necessary. The reasons appear partly rooted in the nature of Charles's beliefs and partly in the methods he employed to pursue them.
Regarding religion and the Church, Charles's beliefs raised fears he seemed unable to understand. The changes he introduced into the Church offended Puritans at every level, but Puritans never constituted a majority among his subjects. What alarmed a far wider number was the fear and suspicion raised by the respect shown to Catholics. Charles failed to grasp that for many Protestants, particularly those with Puritan sympathies, the Pope represented Anti-Christ and served as the devil's instrument. Allowing Catholics into positions of power and making it easier for them to be accommodated within the Church appeared to undermine the defences of true religion and liberty.
Religious and Political Fears Combined
Against the backdrop of militant Catholicism and war in Europe, Charles seemed to be advancing the cause of an international Catholic conspiracy by providing a foothold in Protestant England to its most dangerous enemies. Though these concerns may appear dramatic, they reflected the anti-Catholic prejudice embedded in English thinking, which encompassed political as well as religious fears.
Key perceptions included:
- Catholic monarchs were seen as absolutists and destroyers of parliaments
- Catholic bishops were viewed as enforcing the Pope's will and persecuting other faiths
- Religious authority was believed to be used to interfere in governmental affairs
The architect of absolutism in France was Cardinal Richelieu, a cleric. Rumour claimed that Archbishop Laud had been offered a cardinal's hat by the Pope himself. Laud encouraged that bishops in the Anglican Church inherited their power from Christ himself, promoted clergy pride and pretensions, dominated the Privy Council and secured appointments for his protégés among both clergy and laymen. The similarities appeared too close to ignore.
Charles's personality and the growth of opposition
Within this context, Charles's Personal Rule assumed a more threatening appearance than he could have imagined. Historians who suggest little reaction occurred to the 1629 dissolution probably assess correctly; opposition grew with the development of Charles's policies and the apparent hardening of his intentions after that date. To some degree this resulted from the cumulative effect of his policies across different areas, but it also stemmed from his personality.
Charles proved no more autocratic in his political beliefs than his father, but he lacked James's grasp of political reality and suffered from a dangerous combination of naivety and determination. Because he harboured no plans to destroy Parliament, he remained incapable of understanding the fears he generated. Faced with opposition for which he could see no justification, he assumed it was maliciously intended. Feeling himself under attack, he responded with determination to assert his authority, which included vindictive punishments of those who opposed him.
The Paradox of Charles's Character
Though Charles was not an autocrat by belief, he was certainly autocratic in temperament. For many of his subjects, the practical effect remained much the same.
This contradiction between Charles's constitutional beliefs and his personal style explains much of the confusion and fear that characterized the Personal Rule period.
Key Points to Remember:
- Charles's Personal Rule (1629–37) showed limited structural changes to government, suggesting he did not actively plan to create absolute monarchy despite contemporary fears.
- Charles devoted attention to making existing systems more efficient rather than revolutionizing governmental structures; Ship Money was an extension of existing practices, not a radical innovation.
- Charles's vision centred on a dignified, formal monarchy emphasizing hierarchy, order, ceremony and personal virtue, reflected in his strictly regulated court at Windsor.
- Opposition grew from cumulative policy effects combined with religious fears about Catholic influence and political anxieties about absolutism, fueled by anti-Catholic prejudice in English political culture.
- Charles's autocratic temperament, political naivety and vindictive response to criticism generated opposition he could not understand, making him appear more threatening than his actual beliefs warranted.