Charles Personal Rule FLA note

Q: How significant was the reaction to Charles's dissolution of Parliament in March 1629?

A: At the time, it was considered less significant than it later appeared, with relatively little hostile reaction.

Q: What happened to the nine MPs involved in the Three Resolutions?

A: They were imprisoned, five were quickly released, and John Eliot, Denzil Holles, and Benjamin Valentine (the ringleaders) were brought to trial in 1630 and imprisoned in the Tower of London.

Q: How did Charles handle the imprisoned ringleaders?

A: Charles moved them between prisons to evade writs of Habeas Corpus, ensuring they remained under lock and key until trial.

Q: What was the fate of John Eliot compared to Holles and Valentine?

A: Holles and Valentine apologized and were released, but Eliot refused and died in prison in 1632.

Q: How did later Parliamentary propagandists use John Eliot’s imprisonment?

A: They framed his death as an example of the cause of liberty, though at the time, few remarked on it.

Q: What proclamation did Charles issue in 1629 regarding Parliament?

A: He stated he would call no more parliaments until his subjects had a better understanding of him.

Q: How did Charles view the long-term effects of his reforms?

A: He expected his reforms to be understood, accepted, and to produce cooperative assemblies by demonstrating the benefits of good government.

Q: What was Charles’s hallmark approach during the Personal Rule?

A: He actively attended Privy Council meetings, ensured his purposes were implemented, and paid careful attention to detail and his ministers.

Q: How did Charles differ from James I in dealing with ministers?

A: Unlike James, Charles never developed close personal relationships with ministers or favorites after Buckingham’s death.

Q: Who were Charles's chief advisors during the Personal Rule?

A: William Laud and Sir Thomas Wentworth (later Earl of Strafford).

Q: What was the Queen’s role in Charles’s governance?

A: She was his closest companion, but her influence was potentially damaging due to her lack of political understanding and knowledge of England’s government.

Q: How did the royal court reflect Charles’s personality?

A: It was formal, dignified, elegant, remote, inward-looking, and rigid, with strict hierarchy and etiquette.

Q: What role did art and patronage play in Charles’s court?

A: Van Dyck painted Charles and his Queen in a moral and splendid manner, while masques depicted the King as semi-divine using themes from history and mythology.

Q: Why was Charles’s court viewed with suspicion?

A: Its remote nature, use of Catholic artists like Van Dyck and Rubens, and emphasis on semi-divine authority fueled fears of absolutism.

Q: What nickname did contemporaries give to Charles’s political court?

A: The "Spanish faction," due to its preference for an alliance with Spain and Catholic associations.

Q: How often did the Privy Council meet and what was its role?

A: It met twice weekly, handled routine government business, and acted as a court requiring the King’s direct judgment.

Q: Why did routine affairs suffer in the Privy Council?

A: It was understaffed and overworked, leaving little time for policy initiation or long-term strategies.

Q: How involved was Charles in the Privy Council’s work?

A: He attended meetings about once a month but made major policy decisions with close associates who shared his views.

Q: Who were the key figures in Charles’s local governance system?

A: Judges, Lord Lieutenants, sheriffs, Justices of the Peace (JPs), and constables, most of whom were unpaid officials.

Q: What was the function of JPs in local government?

A: They judged lesser crimes, enforced statutes, supervised poor relief, regulated alehouses, and maintained roads.

Q: What did the Book of Orders (1631) direct JPs to do during the poor harvest of 1630?

A: Prevent vagrancy, place poor children in apprenticeships, punish delinquents, and put the idle to work.

Q: Why did the Book of Orders fail as a long-term strategy?

A: Reports from JPs became vague, communication with central government was erratic, and local communities resisted outside intervention.

Q: What structural limitations hindered Charles’s control of local government?

A: Unpaid officials, rampant corruption, and limited resources prevented significant reform or sustained control.

Q: How did prerogative courts like the Court of Star Chamber fit into Charles’s governance?

A: These courts, with judges appointed by the King, were used to handle crimes against the state and ensure the King’s orders were carried out.

Q: What suspicion did Charles's governance raise among the political nation?

A: Questions arose about whether Charles could truly control central policy and local order without Parliament.

Q: What key reforms were made during Charles’s reign?

A: Improved efficiency and uniformity in local governance, better instructions to office holders, and a reformed postal system.

Q: What were the limits of Charles’s reforms?

A: Radical change required new laws, and corruption persisted due to unpaid officials.