Charles I 1625-29

What was James I's overall religious approach and how did it shape Charles's inheritance?

James sought a broad Church of England to hold moderates and many Puritans together.

He appointed anti-Puritan Richard Bancroft (Archbishop of Canterbury, 1604) but removed only a few clergy, then appointed George Abbot (a Puritan) later, producing a compromise settlement.

He delayed and modified the English Prayer Book's impact in Scotland.

Overall: James left mixed religious settlement that hid tensions which Charles inherited — useful short-term moderation but long-term division.

How did the Gunpowder Plot and its aftermath shape James's policy toward Catholics (and thus Charles's starting point)?

The 1605 Gunpowder Plot led to stronger measures: recusancy fines increased, Catholics removed from office, and the Oath of Allegiance (1606) required.

Moderates who swore loyalty could be identified.

This created a climate of distrust toward Catholicism that persisted into Charles's reign.

Overall: James's reaction hardened public opinion against Catholics - a political problem for Charles when he later married a Catholic queen.

What financial arrangements and failures under James affected Charles?

James left crown debt (of over £1 million) and an unsettled fiscal system.

Salisbury's Great Contract (1610) proposed a fixed annual Crown income of £200,000 in return for ending many prerogative dues, but it failed due to royal/Parliamentary mistrust.

The "Great Farm of the Customs" modernised customs collection but made Parliament fear crown self-sufficiency.

Overall: Charles inherited fiscal instability and no long-term settlement — a key structural cause of 1625-29 conflict.

How did James's foreign policy and the Thirty Years' War affect Charles?

James favoured diplomacy (Rex Pacificus) and dynastic marriages (pursued a Spanish match for Prince Charles).

The 1618 outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, and the Palatinate crisis after Frederick accepted Bohemia, left the Stuarts connected to a Protestant diplomacy problem that Charles had to confront militarily.

Overall: James's diplomatic caution left Charles squeezed between popular demand to aid Protestants and a precarious diplomatic position.

Who was Charles I and what were his personal traits relevant to rule?

Born 1600, reserved, shy, physically frail and with a stammer — preferred a small inner circle (wife Henrietta Maria, Buckingham initially).

Passionate collector of art and keen on royal dignity and ceremony.

Overall: Personal reticence made him poor at large-scale political negotiation and dependent on favourites — a handicap politically.

What were Charles I's stated aims on accession (1625)?

Maintain law and order; defend kingdoms; promote royal prestige; provide religious leadership; secure finances through efficient revenue.

He emphasised order, dignity, and hierarchical authority (consistent with Divine Right).

Overall: Aims were conventional for a monarch, but achieving them required political skill and resources Charles found difficult to secure.

How did Charles's stammer and personality influence how contemporaries judged him?

The stammer and shyness were taken as signs of weakness by many in an age that equated physical presence with competence; printing culture amplified impressions of aloofness.

Overall: Negative public perceptions reduced his political capital, particularly in Parliament.

What short-term practical strengths did Charles have as monarch?

Strong commitment to symbolism (art, architecture — e.g., commissioning Rubens), loyalty from confidants, and willingness to use prerogative powers decisively when needed.

Overall: These strengthened royal image and immediate control but did not build broad political consensus.

What was the Divine Right of Kings (DRK) and how did Charles apply it?

DRK = monarch chosen by God, therefore challenging the king was challenging God.

Charles publicly endorsed DRK (commissioned apotheosis art like Rubens's ceiling) and applied it to defend prerogative over Parliament and law.

Overall: DRK gave ideological justification for Charles's actions, but politically alienated those who defended Parliamentary liberties.

Who resisted the DRK idea and why?

Parliament (Commons & some Lords)

Puritans (who argued the king's spiritual power was limited)

Catholics (who claimed papal authority).

Resistance came because DRK threatened parliamentary authority and individual liberties.

Overall: Widespread ideological resistance meant DRK inflamed politics rather than securing obedience.

How did Charles reform the court on accession?

- He tightened decorum

- Limited access (set audience days)

- Insisted on order by rank --> The Venetian ambassador (April 1625) reported increased temperance and structured daily routine at Whitehall.

Overall: Reformed court improved royal dignity but reduced patronage access that many gentry expected — politically costly.

Who was Henrietta Maria and why was her marriage politically contentious?

French princess (daughter of Henry IV)

Catholic

Married Charles 13 June 1625.

Treaty allowed her freedom of worship and tolerance for her household.

Her open Catholicism alarmed Protestant England.

Overall: Her marriage strengthened dynastic ties to France but intensified anti-Catholic sentiment at home.

What was the relationship between Buckingham and Queen Henrietta Maria, and why was it problematic?

Though Buckingham helped arrange the French marriage treaty (1624-25) after the failed Spanish match, he and Henrietta Maria strongly disliked each other.

She blamed him for her initial mistreatment in England — including the dismissal of her French Catholic household (1626).

She resented his influence over Charles.

Buckingham in turn saw her as meddling and pro-French.

Their hostility created serious tension at court.

Contemporaries described the queen as "weeping daily" during early marriage disputes.

Overall: Personal animosity between the queen and Buckingham destabilised court harmony and complicated foreign policy — adding to the mistrust Parliament already felt toward Buckingham.

What practical effects did Henrietta Maria have on policy and court culture?

She brought French courtiers

Promoted Catholic protection (helped free arrested priests)

Fostered elaborate masques (court entertainments)

Cultivated a Catholic court faction (Earl of Holland, Wat Montagu).

Overall: Increased royal cultural prestige but worsened religious tensions and suspicion.

Give an example of court culture that alarmed Protestants.

French-style masques and Catholic iconography (references to Virgin Mary in court painting and Ben Jonson's poems)

This created the impression of popish leanings.

Overall: Cultural display became political evidence to Protestants of Catholicising tendencies.

What tangible protection did Henrietta Maria provide for Catholics?

Treaty protections allowed open worship for her attendants and she used influence to secure release of arrested priests.

She built a noble Catholic circle praised by Pope Urban VIII.

Overall: Provided real, discrete benefits to Catholics, increasing Protestant alarm.

How did Henrietta Maria's household affect Anglo-French relations?

Initially hoped to cement pro-French cooperation vs Habsburg Spain, but Louis XIII & Richelieu pursued independent French interests.

The queen's French retinue was dismissed in 1626 due to tensions.

Overall: Marriage failed to yield reliable military diplomacy and increased domestic suspicion.

What role did George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, play in Charles's government?

Buckingham (favourite of James then Charles) monopolised patronage

He also led foreign expeditions (Mansfeld, Cádiz, La Rochelle), and was Lord High Admiral.

Buckingham's military incompetence and influence made him a parliamentary target; assassinated August 1628.

Overall: Central source of royal power but his failures and dominance provoked parliamentary backlash.

Who was William Laud and what was his significance?

An Arminian churchman promoted into higher office (later Archbishop) whose ceremonial/high-church policy supported royal authority and hierarchy.

Overall: Laudian policies aligned church with monarchy but antagonised Puritan MPs.

Who was Thomas Wentworth (Earl of Strafford) and why matter?

A strong administrator who later became key royal servant (Council of the North, Lord Deputy in Ireland).

He exemplified Charles's reliance on centralised, efficient officials.

Overall: Effective administrator for royal aims but his assertive methods later fuelled opposition.

Who were Richard Weston and Francis Cottington?

Weston (Chancellor/Lord Treasurer) was a moderate, Catholic-sympathetic financial mind.

Cottington (Spanish expert) was secretary to Prince Charles

Both would be important in financial policy and later Personal Rule.

Overall: Offered moderate financial skill to stabilise royal finances but could not solve structural problems alone.

What was the court factional split under Henrietta Maria and Buckingham?

Two court factions: pro-French around the queen (Earl of Holland, Wat Montagu)

Pro-Spanish/pro-financial moderates around Weston/Cottington/Laud — created competing foreign and religious influence.

Overall: Factionalism complicated coherent policy and increased political instability.

How did access to the king shape power in the Caroline court?

Proximity to Charles (private apartments, patronage) determined appointments

Buckingham's control of access made him the gatekeeper.

Charles limited access later, increasing the value of court positions and creating resentment among excluded gentry (e.g., fines for staying in London).

Overall: Centralised access increased royal control but also created political enemies

What was tonnage and poundage and why was it politically sensitive?

Customs duties on imports/exports.

Historically granted by Parliament at accession, usually for the monarch's life.

In 1625 Commons refused full life grant, making tonnage/poundage a constitutional battleground.

Overall: Symbolic of Parliament's attempt to control revenue and check royal prerogative.

What was the Great Contract and how does its £200,000 figure matter?

Salisbury's 1610 proposal to settle Crown finances with Parliament in return for surrendering many feudal prerogatives.

Proposed £200,000 per year.

Failure meant no settled revenue, leaving Charles vulnerable to fiscal crisis.

Overall: Its failure was a crucial structural reason Charles lacked a stable income.

What was the "Great Farm of the Customs" and why did Parliament dislike it?

A syndicate system outsourcing customs collection to merchants who guaranteed fixed sums to the Crown.

Made customs efficient but alarmed MPs who feared crown independence from Parliamentary supply.

Overall: Modernisation created suspicion and fuelled financial constitutional disputes.

How much money did Charles need for his anti-Spanish foreign policy (broad estimate from textbook)?

The text indicates needs of roughly £1 million for sustained military engagement overseas

This was a huge fiscal burden forcing repeated recourse to Parliament and prerogative expedients.

Overall: Enormous financial needs made conflict over revenue almost inevitable.

What immediate fiscal tools did Charles turn to when Parliament withheld funds?

He used prerogative revenues, customs collection despite Commons refusal, benevolences, and the Forced Loan (1626) to raise cash without Parliamentary consent.

Overall: Raised short-term funds but provoked constitutional crisis.

What was a "benevolence" and how was it used by Stuart monarchs?

A "voluntary" gift of money requested in emergencies; historically occasional and voluntary, but in 1626 turned coercive (leading to Forced Loan practice).

Overall: Efficacy declined when the Crown made it compulsory in practice.

Give the significance of the queen's £120,000 dowry as used in 1625.

Henrietta Maria's dowry of £120,000 financed the Cádiz expedition (Sept 1625).

Using a dowry for war demonstrated fiscal desperation and the crown's willingness to consume dynastic funds.

Overall: Money was spent on failed ventures, increasing political anger

What was the parliamentary reason for refusing full tonnage and poundage in 1625?

Distrust of Buckingham's influence and suspicion of royal foreign policy meant Commons restricted the grant to avoid funding what they thought was incompetent leadership.

Overall: Parliamentary attempts to restrain revenue were defensive but escalated conflict.

What was the Star Chamber's role in fiscal control and discipline?

Star Chamber enforced royal orders and punished gentry, e.g., William Palmer fined £1,000 (1632) for staying in London.

This was a demonstration of royal discipline via courts.

Overall: Courts were used to enforce royal policies and deter opposition, but fines increased resentment and perceptions of arbitrary power.

How did judges and clergy react to the Forced Loan?

Some judges refused to validate the loan's legality (e.g., dismissal of Chief Justice Carew), and Archbishop George Abbot was suspended for refusing to license sermons defending the loan — showing institutional resistance.

Overall: Judicial and ecclesiastical pushback undermined the crown's claim to unilateral financial powers.

What was the long-term financial consequence of Charles collecting customs despite Commons' refusal?

Short term revenues came in but Parliament's sense of being bypassed hardened, contributing to the later demand for the Petition of Right and the dissolution of Parliament.

Overall: Tactical success but strategic failure.

Name one administrative attempt (under James/Charles) to professionalise revenue and why it failed politically.

Salisbury's customs "Great Farm" professionalised collection but made Parliament fear the Crown's reduced dependence — politically unacceptable to MPs and thus contributed to collapse of Great Contract.

Overall: Better administration threatened Parliamentary leverage.

What was the Forced Loan (1626) and how was it implemented?

A forced collection that required payments at public meetings; though named a "loan" it seldom meant repayment and equalled up to five parliamentary subsidies for many contributors.

It was used to finance foreign policy when Parliament withheld subsidies.

Overall: Raised money but provoked strong resistance and legal challenge.

What pamphlet critique summed opposition to the Forced Loan (message & argument)?

Anonymous pamphlet to all English Freeholders warned the loan would set a precedent for raising money without law, leading to loss of liberty and property — showing the ideological stakes.

Overall: Public pamphlets framed the loan as a constitutional as well as fiscal danger.

What happened in the Five Knights' Case (1627)?

Five knights and others imprisoned for refusing the Forced Loan sought habeas corpus; judges in the test case upheld the king's power to imprison in these circumstances.

Overall: Legal ruling favoured prerogative in the short term but politically strengthened calls for statutory safeguards (Petition of Right).

How did the Five Knights' Case lead to statutory reform?

Parliamentary outrage at arbitrary detention became a central grievance and contributed directly to the drafting and passing of the Petition of Right (1628).

Overall: Judicial ruling triggered political remedy attempts rather than calming tensions.

What was the wider constitutional meaning of forced impositions without legal consent?

It was perceived as taxation without consent and a breach of ancient liberties, undermining the social contract between king and political nation.

Overall: Fiscal expedients without legal backing mobilised Parliament and public against the king.

Who were Sir Edward Coke and Sir John Eliot and what roles did they play?

Coke (lawyer) and Eliot (MP) were leaders of Commons resistance.

Coke drafted constitutional arguments (e.g., Petition of Right).

Eliot pushed impeachment of Buckingham and parliamentary rights.

Overall: Legal expertise in Commons turned grievances into constitutional challenges.

What was the Protestation of 1621 and why did James view it as offensive?

A Commons assertion of privileges and rights.

James saw it as meddling in prerogative (foreign policy) and lectured MPs on limits of parliamentary competence, sowing mistrust.

Overall: Early assertion of Parliamentary identity that hardened royal-parliamentary conflict.

What parliamentary tactic in 1626 aimed at Buckingham and why did Charles resist?

Impeachment proceedings against Buckingham in May 1626 led Charles to dissolve Parliament rather than allow conviction.

He defended his prerogative and personal loyalty to his favourite.

Overall: Charles's protection of Buckingham alienated MPs and escalated conflict.

What was the Petition of Right (date and main provisions)?

Passed 7 June 1628 — demanded no taxation without Parliament, no arbitrary imprisonment, no billeting of soldiers, and no martial law imposed on civilians.

Aimed at reversing abuses like Forced Loans and Five Knights.

Overall: Parliamentary constitutional victory on paper but ambiguous compliance by Charles limited practical effect.

How did Parliament try to limit the king's ability to collect customs and taxes?

Commons refused life grants of tonnage/poundage, used redress of grievances as leverage for supply and pursued legal and impeachment routes against ministers responsible for fiscal failures.

Overall: Parliamentary leverage over finances was a central constitutional tool — effective but provocative.

What were the "Three Resolutions" and what role did they play (1629)?

Commons' dramatic measures in March 1629 (resolutions condemning innovations and Arminianism) culminated in Charles dissolving Parliament after MPs physically restrained the Speaker — precipitating Personal Rule.

Overall: Parliamentary radicalism inspired royal shutdown rather than compromise.

What parliamentary procedures were used to make constitutional points in 1620s Commons?

Use of petitions, impeachment, commission of grievances, and drafting statutory documents (like Petition of Right) — MPs combined legal argument and political pressure.

Overall: Parliamentary procedure professionalised opposition and turned policy disputes into constitutional matters.

How did print culture and pamphleteering affect Parliamentary politics?

Pamphlets and almanacs spread critique (anonymous and named) of royal measures (Forced Loan, expeditions, Buckingham) and shaped public opinion supporting Commons' stance.

Overall: Wider public discourse amplified Parliamentary pressure and made royal errors more damaging.

What is Arminianism and why did it alarm Puritans?

Arminianism emphasised free will, ceremony and hierarchy.

It was seen as "too close to Catholicism" by Puritans who feared backsliding from Calvinist doctrine and clerical power.

Overall: Arminian rise created ideological crisis linking religion to politics.

Who was Richard Montagu and why was he controversial?

Montagu (royal chaplain) wrote "A new goose for an old Gag" and Appello Caesarem (1624-25) arguing similarity between Church of England and some Catholic practices.

Parliament tried to prosecute him, creating court-Parliament rift.

Overall: Montagu's writings became a flashpoint for religious/political conflict.

What happened at the York House Conference (Feb 1626)?

A secret theological debate chaired by Buckingham to examine Montagu's views and predestination; Buckingham sided with Arminians politically to strengthen ties with Charles.

Overall: Conference confirmed an Arminian court faction and alarmed Puritan MPs.

How did Charles use church appointments to strengthen royal authority?

He promoted Arminian clergy (Montagu, later Laud) to key posts and using ecclesiastical patronage to secure a church aligned with hierarchical royal rule.

Overall: Strengthened royal religious policy but alienated a large Parliamentarian group.

How did the Book of Sports and other liturgical issues create conflict?

The Book of Sports (endorsed by James, recirculated later) encouraged Sunday recreation and offended Puritans; liturgical enforcement and prayer book revisions raised resistance, especially in Scotland.

Overall: Liturgical disputes fed broader mistrust about monarchy's religious direction.

What role did Archbishop George Abbot play in religious politics?

Abbot (Archbishop 1611-33) sat on Puritan side.

He resisted forced sermons supporting the loan, and was suspended for refusing to license pro-loan sermons — illustrating church division.

Overall: Church leaders split, weakening unified religious support for the Crown.

How did Catholics fit into religious politics under Charles?

Catholics were a small gentry minority; queen's household protected some, and Catholic practices at court alarmed Protestants who equated Catholicism with foreign influence and absolutism.

Overall: Catholic presence at court intensified fears and fuelled Parliamentary resistance.

How does religion link to the theme of power throughout 1625-29?

Religious policy (Arminian appointments, queen's Catholicism) reinforced a hierarchical model of power.

The king sought a loyal church to legitimise DRK.

Opponents saw religious change as a vehicle for increased royal control.

Overall: Religion and power were inseparable in creating the crisis.

What was the Mansfeld expedition (1624) and why did it fail?

An expedition sent to help Frederick (Palatinate) under Count Mansfeld.

Diplomacy failed (French refused passage because King Louis XIII demanded that his allies (England and the United Provinces) first help him with his own military operations in the Spanish Netherlands) and troops were stranded in the United Provinces, suffering starvation and sickness.

Overall: Early foreign ill-judgement that discredited royal strategy and leadership.

What was the Cádiz expedition (Sept 1625)?

Fleet financed in part with the queen's £120,000 dowry; expedition aimed to seize Spanish treasure at Cádiz but collapsed: troops got drunk, failed to capture port/treasure — expensive humiliation.

Overall: Demonstrated poor planning and fuelled Parliament's anger at Buckingham and royal command.

What role did Buckingham play in the failed Spanish marriage negotiations, and how did it affect later events?

In 1623, Buckingham accompanied Prince Charles on a secret mission to Madrid to secure marriage with the Spanish Infanta Maria Anna.

The trip was rash and unorthodox — they went in disguise without formal diplomatic backing.

The Spanish demanded Charles convert to Catholicism and end anti-Spanish laws, which he refused.

Both men felt humiliated, and Buckingham blamed the Spanish court.

On return, they encouraged anti-Spanish sentiment and pushed for a French alliance instead.

Overall: The Madrid journey damaged Buckingham's credibility abroad but deepened his personal bond with Charles and steered policy towards France — shaping the 1625 French marriage.

Île de Ré / La Rochelle campaign (1627-28): basic facts and casualties:

Military action intended to aid French Huguenots at La Rochelle

Expedition suffered heavy losses — of 7,833 men sent only ~2,989 returned (textbook figures), huge human cost and strategic failure.

Overall: One of the most damaging foreign failures of Charles's early reign; long-term political fallout.

Why did relations with France go wrong despite the queen's origin?

Louis XIII & Cardinal Richelieu prioritised French national interest.

Richelieu used English ships against Huguenots and refused coordinated action, showing France would not be a reliable ally despite the marriage.

Overall: Dynastic link did not translate to effective alliance; Charles's expectations were frustrated

What larger pattern do Mansfeld, Cádiz and La Rochelle show?

Repeated diplomatic miscalculation.

Coordination failure with allies and military (often linked to Buckingham's leadership).

Overall: Pattern of failure undermined royal credibility and drained finances.

What political consequences followed these foreign disasters?

Parliament blamed Buckingham (impeachment attempts)

Refused funds

Political support for war evaporated.

This exacerbated the fiscal/constitutional crisis.

Overall: Foreign failures were a primary catalyst for the breakdown between Crown and Parliament.

Give a short assessment of Charles's overall foreign policy 1625-29.

Aims were anti-Habsburg and pro-Palatinate.

Execution (Mansfeld, Cádiz, La Rochelle) failed.

Heavy costs and human losses made policy politically unsustainable.

Overall: Largely unsuccessful and a major contributor to domestic crises.

What role did Buckingham's title of Lord High Admiral have in these failures?

As Lord High Admiral Buckingham was responsible for naval operations (e.g., Cádiz).

Showed incompetence as commander.

Parliament seized on this to demand his prosecution.

Overall: His combined military role and political favouritism intensified calls for accountability.

How did the Palatinate crisis tie to domestic politics?

Support for Frederick (Stuart in-law) had emotional resonance with Protestant MPs and public, turning foreign reverses into domestic political grievances that demanded Parliamentary action.

Overall: Foreign affairs and domestic politics were deeply intertwined, raising stakes for both sides.

Why did Charles invest in art and architecture (Rubens ceiling, Banqueting House)?

To project royal dignity and the ideology of DRK (e.g., Rubens' "Apotheosis of James I"); such symbolic projects reinforced royal image and legitimacy.

Overall: Improved ideological prestige but didn't address political or fiscal realities.

What was the political symbolism of masques and court entertainments?

Masques displayed the monarchy's cultural sophistication and hierarchical order — but French-style masques and queen's entertainments were read as Catholicising signals by opponents.

Overall: Cultural policy became political evidence used by critics.

How did the royal household's reorganisation reflect political aims?

Charles' orderliness (set audience days, rank discipline) emphasised hierarchical control and limited access.

This consolidated authority but alienating courtiers used to broader access.

Overall: Increased royal control at cost of patronage goodwill.

Give an example of propaganda that enhanced the queen's image.

Ben Jonson's poem likening Henrietta Maria to the Virgin Mary at childbirth elevated her status and linked royal births to providential safety — an image used to bolster legitimacy.

Overall: Effective for court audiences but deepened protestant suspicion

How did court fines and punishments (Star Chamber) reinforce royal authority?

Fines (e.g., William Palmer £1,000 fine) enforced discipline and signalled that court order was being backed by legal power — but also fuelled perception of arbitrary justice.

Overall: Strengthened short-term compliance but contributed to long-term resentment.

How effective was court culture as a tool of governance?

Symbolically potent but practically limited — it maintained elite cohesion for some, but alienated the political nation who feared court fashions indicated dangerous religious/political shifts.

Overall: Useful for image-making; poor substitute for consensus building.

Memorise: Key numeric/significant facts you must recall for essays.

Great Contract proposed £200,000 p.a.

Queen's dowry £120,000 (used at Cádiz)

La Rochelle expedition 7,833 sent, ~2,989 returned

Estimate 50,000 men served under Buckingham 1624-28

Palmer fine £1,000 cited as example of discipline.

Who is to blame for breakdown, Charles or Parliament?

Shared blame: Charles's rigid DRK, protection of Buckingham, forced loans and promotion of Arminians provoked Parliament; Parliament's assertiveness, impeachment attempts and refusal to fund exacerbated crisis.

Overall: Multi-causal — institutional legacy + choices by both sides.

Two arguments for Charles being successful:

(1) Maintained royal dignity and prerogative

(2) raised emergency revenues (forced loan/customs) to pursue policy

Overall: Short-term maintenance of authority but at long-term cost.

Two short arguments against Charles being successful.

(1) Foreign failures (Cádiz/La Rochelle) lost lives, money and prestige

(2) constitutional breakdown (Petition of Right, 1629 dissolution) shows failure to secure consent.

Overall: Political failure that produced Personal Rule rather than parliamentary consent.

Overall judgement on Charles 1625-1629.

Charles secured short-term control and promoted a dignified royal image.

However, his defence of royal prerogative, fiscal coercions, reliance on Buckingham and Arminian religious policy deeply fractured relations with Parliament.

By 1629 the consensus had broken and Charles chose Personal Rule.

This was an outcome that signals political failure in securing durable support.

Overall: Limited operational successes; strategic and constitutional failure.