2B
AQA A-LEVEL HISTORY (7042)
HIS1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702
________________________________________________________________
SECTION ONE Monarchs and Parliaments, 1603-1629
Topic 2 James I and Charles I: character, court and favourites
Key Question A: Did the character, court and favourites of Charles I make him a suitable King?
The character of Charles I:
Charles I was born in 1600, the second son of James and Anne of Denmark. Due to his status as the younger child, his small size and the fact that a case of rickets left him unable to walk unaided in his youth, Charles was dubbed ‘Baby Charles’ by his parents, a moniker he carried all his life. By contrast, his elder brother, Henry, was widely praised for his ‘kingly’ stature and physicality. However, in 1612, Henry died unexpectedly after a painful four-week illness, leaving Charles as heir to the throne.
Charles was brought up very much in the shadow of his brother and had not initially been prepared to inherit the throne. Such were his difficulties in adolescence that in 1615, it was even suggested that James’s daughter, Elizabeth, should be made the legitimate heir in his place. Eventually, Charles conquered his physical infirmity, and became an adept horseman and marksman. Even so, his public profile and general popularity remained low in contrast to that enjoyed by his elder brother.
As it would turn out, the role of King was indeed one for which Charles was largely unsuited, as the following reasons demonstrate:
Charles’s physical defect was seen as a sign of weakness in an age where abnormalities were perceived as an indication of God’s judgement;
naturally shy and hampered by a speech defect, Charles was a poor public speaker, could be uncommunicative and was seen by others as unapproachable;
he rarely explained or justified his actions, instead leaving others to interpret their meaning;
an inferiority complex led to him overstressing his royal prerogative;
he lacked shrewdness and flexibility, and seemed incapable of seeing anyone else’s viewpoint but his own;
Charles required unquestioning obedience and would interpret even the slightest hint of disagreement with him as tantamount to open rebellion;
his rigid self-control was in stark contrast to his father, and he expected the rest of his court to show the same restraint and measure;
he was not averse to using dishonest and underhand measures to deal with his opponents;
the one area of government where he was prepared to be more liberal was in his approach to religion, but allowing his court to be dominated by Catholics and more moderate Protestants created great resentment among a significant part of the Political Nation;
he used the arts extensively to propagate an image emphasising his power and authority through the Divine Right of Kings;
Charles’s suspicion of Parliament led him to rely heavily on the advice of a small number of royal favourites, most notably the Duke of Buckingham, who had also been his father’s most trusted advisor, but who was despised by the Political Nation for having too much power;
although he was a devoted husband and father, his eventual choice of wife – Henrietta Maria – aroused suspicion, as she was French and a Catholic.
Charles I’s views on monarchy
James had been careful to cultivate a strong belief in Divine Right in both his sons. A lack of natural confidence meant that Charles’s usual response to opposition was to take refuge in the appearance of certainty and to view those who disagreed with him as being motivated by malice. The theory of Divine Right gave him justification to do so. Charles believed that political power should lie firmly in his own hands, and only be shared with a select number of advisers whom he trusted wholeheartedly. This conviction immediately became evident in the reforms he made at the start of his reign:
his main aims when he became King in 1625 were all based around the centralisation of his own power, e.g., restoring decorum to the Royal Court, increasing uniformity of worship within the Church, establishing a more secure financial base for the Crown and strengthening the authority of the monarchy by exercising a firmer hold over the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland;
rank and nobility were all-important, and the royal family’s privacy had to be respected, so unlike during the reign of his father, Charles reduced personal contact with the Political Nation by restricting access to the Bedchamber;
he promoted royal chaplains who strongly supported Divine Right and reflected the King’s desire for ceremony and hierarchy in their styles of worship.
Charles I’s Court and Favourites
Charles’s belief in Divine Right was also reflected in a drastic change to the atmosphere of the Royal Court. In stark contrast to the relaxed environment created by James, Charles insisted upon sombre self-restraint. Ceremonies surrounding the actions of the King modelled on those exercised in France (where the monarch was seen as absolute) became the norm, and a greater sense of ritual was introduced into the court, e.g., Charles insisted that he was served food by a servant on bended knee. Meanwhile, the wide variety of court entertainments that had been on offer during the previous regime were replaced with performances (plays, masques, etc.) which, while undoubtedly lavish, rarely deviated from a single theme: the power of the King and the value of subjects showing unquestioning loyalty to him.
By the end of James I’s reign, Buckingham had usurped considerable amounts of royal patronage for himself and his followers. When the King died in 1625, many must have been looking forward to seeing the favourite swept away in the flood of change anticipated with the succession. Charles, however, proved to be less susceptible to faction than his father. Buckingham, who had carefully laid the foundations of his continued pre-eminence, soon established with the new monarch what he had never secured from James and what no other minister was to achieve with Charles – an unshakeable position in the King's esteem and affections. The two young men had known each other from adolescence and it is not perhaps inappropriate to suggest that Villiers became for Charles, after the death of Prince Henry in 1610, the elder brother and extrovert mentor whom the young prince desperately needed. Their journey to Madrid in 1623 (an attempt to win the hand of the Spanish Infanta, Anna Maria) galvanised a friendship through political alliance. Thus, from the start of Charles’s reign, Buckingham enjoyed a unique trust from the King.
The new style which Charles brought to the monarchy and Court strengthened Buckingham's position still further. Where, as we have seen, the monarchical style of James was casual and familiar, access to the King open and debate free, Charles I secluded himself behind an elaborate ceremonial and formality which few could penetrate to plant seeds of doubt in the King's mind. Within the privacy of the bedchamber, Buckingham acted as the principal confidant, advising the King not only on the conduct of diplomacy and war, but on his stormy relations with his new bride. Having survived the transition from one monarch to another and strengthened his position, Buckingham now received almost an exclusive monopoly of favour at court.
As a result, someone who the Political Nation had viewed as a growing nuisance now became a dangerous adversary and public enemy number one. It is true that Buckingham’s influence proved a public relations disaster for the Crown. With a young and uncertain monarch, Buckingham was able to indulge his personal pride and ambition, having been given licence (as commander of England’s military forces) to embark on an aggressive foreign policy that England could ill afford. The wars that he was to enter against France and Spain in 1624-27 had no clear purpose and were inefficiently managed, although his decisions were supported all the way by the King.
By 1628, MPs were openly describing Buckingham as ‘the cause of all our miseries’, and it has been argued that his was possibly the most significant role in the deterioration of Charles’s relationship with Parliament.