Charles I addressed the financial weaknesses of the Crown, in the years 1625 to 1640, more successfully than James I, in the years 1603 to 1625'

intro

both inherit debt and broken system

criteria

1. 1625-1629

2. James 1603-1625

3. Charles personal rule

judgement

chalres I better but alienate political nation James no reform

PARA ONE: JAMES 1603-1625

1. ‘peacemaker king’ → Treaty of London 1604 (reduce expenditure)

2. exploited monopolies → 1621 granted 100 monopolies (parliament upset)

3. Reform: The Great Contract 1610 (lavish lifestyle made things worse) £36k annually on clothes + ante-suppers £3,300 → parl therefore less likely to grant him money

ultimately James less successful than charles

PARA TWO: CHARLES 1625-29

1. Forced Loan 1626 → reaction to T+P (made worse due to debt inherited from James) £267k (70%) - prerogative power (alienating himself Five Knights Case 1627)

2. → more successful than James as he raised funds at the cost of political capital

PARA THREE: CHARLES PERSONAL RULE 1629-40

1. reduce debt 1629 (£2m 1629 - £18k 1635) = SHIP MONEY → tax encroaching inwards granted him £107k p/a (prerogative income exploitation → Hampden Case 1637) also made peace with France and Spain but still showed his success

2. Bishops War 1639 huge financial strain

CONCLUSION

charles delt more successfully but alienated the political nation