Court under Charles II Personal Rule

Q: How did Charles I’s court differ in formality compared to James I’s court?

A: Charles replaced James’s informal court with strict directives about access to the Privy Chamber, Presence Chamber, and Bed Chamber, and rigid rules of etiquette governing public royal acts like eating.

Q: What impact did court formality have on Charles I’s dining?

A: Strict etiquette rules, such as serving the king on bended knee, condemned Charles to eating lukewarm food.

Q: How did Charles I escape the formality of court rituals?

A: He indulged in hunting whenever possible.

Q: How did Charles’s approach to public appearances differ from Elizabeth I’s?

A: Unlike Elizabeth, Charles sought to remain private and did not aim to win his people's love through public displays.

Q: How did Charles’s marriage to Henrietta Maria evolve?

A: After a rocky start, their marriage became warm and loving, and the birth of their children brought Charles deep satisfaction.

Q: How many children did Charles and Henrietta Maria have, and over what period?

A: They had eight children between 1630 and 1644.

Q: What was Charles I’s main passion during the 1630s?

A: Developing his art collection, which became one of the finest Renaissance collections ever.

Q: How extensive was Charles’s art collection by the time of his death?

A: It included an estimated 1,760 paintings and many sculptures.

Q: What did Viscount Dorchester find Charles doing during critical negotiations?

A: Rearranging his busts of Roman emperors.

Q: Why did Charles’s patronage of artists like Rubens and Bernini arouse suspicion?

A: Both were Catholic, and their works were seen as indicative of Charles’s alleged Catholic sympathies and leanings towards Counter-Reformation ideals.

Q: How was the architect Inigo Jones’s work viewed by critics?

A: His Palladian style was seen as un-English, and the chapels he built were associated with Catholic practices.

Q: What role did masques play in Charles I’s court?

A: Masques were elaborate, symbolic plays often performed only once at great expense, depicting order emerging from chaos, a role Charles believed he played in real life.

Q: How did Charles and Henrietta Maria participate in masques?

A: They actively performed in them, adding to suspicions about the court’s frivolity and Catholic leanings.

Q: How did Puritans like William Prynne view masques?

A: They saw them as immoral and indicative of Catholic and foreign influences.

Q: What was the "political court," and why was it controversial?

A: It was Charles’s inner circle of advisers who shared his artistic, political, and cultural outlooks and were labeled the "Spanish faction" due to their preference for Spain and Catholicism.

Q: How did Sir Thomas Roe describe the state of factionalism in Charles I’s government?

A: Roe sarcastically noted, "We cannot say there is any faction in England. All goes one way and I know not the wit of it."

Q: Why were Protestant supporters like Sir Thomas Roe excluded from influence?

A: They adhered to the political orthodoxy of the prior half-century, which included an alliance with the Dutch, parliamentary participation, and established Calvinism.

Q: Why was the absence of Parliament crucial for the political court’s influence?

A: The political court’s pro-Spain and Arminian religious policies could only thrive without the scrutiny of Parliament.

Q: What religious fears did Charles’s artistic and cultural policies evoke?

A: They were linked to fears of Catholicism and the Counter-Reformation due to his patronage of Catholic artists and architects, as well as his religious policies.

Q: How did Charles’s alignment with Arminianism fuel concerns about Catholicism?

A: Arminianism was seen as a potential gateway to Catholicism, further alarming Protestants about Charles’s intentions.

Q: What broader fears were tied to Charles’s foreign policy?

A: There were concerns about an alliance with Spain and abandonment of the Protestant cause, particularly the Palatinate.

how was political influence disseminated + the issue with this

• concentrated within an elite group

• alienated many in the broader political nation

• provided well defined targets when opposition gained strength

what two factors mitigated the effectiveness of the privy council

1. charles only attended the twice-weekly council sessions only on a handful of occassions. between june 1630 and june 1631 the king only attended 3 times.

2. allowed the “spanish faction” to gain influence - appeared that charles was being steered in a pro-catholic direction.