How far should historians regard Charles’ Personal Rule as an Eleven Year Tyranny?

At his trial in 1649 Charles was accused of implementing a plan ‘to uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will’. Throughout this essay the term tyranny will refer to a leader who capitalises on the exploitation of society and his own prerogative to fulfil his desires of achieving ultimate control, with the most formal definition of tyranny during Charles’ reign, contained in Bodin’s Six Books of a Commonwealth, stating that “tyrannical” monarchies were “where the prince… imperiously abuseth the persons of his free born subjects, and their goods as his own”.While some revisionist historians such as Sharp would argue that Charles’ rule was harmonious and not tyrannical, others such as Underdown contend that Charles’ rule was tyrannical and thus, ultimately, unsuccessful. Through analysing Charles’ financial, religious, and governmental decisions, this essay will contend that Charles’ personal rule should be considered as an Eleven-Year Tyranny as not only did he exploit English society through financial and governmental reforms, but he allowed radical and oppressive innovations in the church. 

It is evident Charles was a tyrannical ruler through his financial decisions. By 1629 Charles had a debt of £2 million, double that inherited from James I. Charles’ tyranny is evident through his illegal collection of taxes, including the revival of forest laws, a source of income which brought income and aggravated landowners, including the Earl of Salisbury who had to pay the significant sum of £200,000 per year. This highlights Charles as exploiting people as he enforced laws that had not been reignited for centuries, and was fully aware of the implications it would have. Another source of income which exposed his exploitative nature was Ship Money. Normally the tax would only be designated to coastal cities for naval defence in time of war, with the only precedent for fairly raising the levy to inland countries was during the Armada crisis of 1588. However, with Charles it was issued annually from 1636. While this raised £200,000 per year 1635-38; equivalent to three subsidies, it was once again at the expense of the people. This exemplifies Charles’ Personal Rule as an Eleven Year Tyranny. Some would argue that these sources of revenue were justified and absolutist instead of tyrannical as his intent was to eradicate the debt that was given to him and was using his royal prerogative to do so. However, while he was trying to remove the debt, he was also using the money to make the ships as extravagant as possible. For example, his flagship the ‘Sovereign of the Seas’ had a gold leaf overlay overall costing £65,000. In addition, he was a patron of the arts, collecting works including a collection of the Gonzaga Dukes of Mantua in 1627 for £18,000. Therefore, his tyrannical nature is evident in that he was abusing his prerogative and allowing these absurd laws to gain money at the expense of the citizens in his country, thus proving that historians should regard Charles’ Personal Rule as an Eleven Year Tyranny.

It is also clear that Charles’ Personal Rule was an Eleven Year Tyranny through the way he dealt with religion. In a predominantly Protestant country, he explicitly promoted Arminianism through agreement with Laud’s five aims. While Sharpe states that historians unanimously describe Laud as “the evil counsellor whose influence… costs the king’s crown”, and Ashton said that “if there is one person to whose actions and policies the fall of the Stuart monarchy can be attributed, that person is William Laud”. Laud was accused of being a Crypto-Catholic due to his belief in transubstantiation. His Catholic tendencies were reinforced by the fact that one of Laud’s aims was to eradicate Puritanism. As a result, there was censorship of pamphlets that opposed Charles and Laud’s reforms. This led individual Puritans such as Bastwick and Prynne to be severely punished in the Courts of High Commission and Star Chamber by having their ears cut off and cheeks branded. Many people saw this punishment as inhumane. Furthermore, to make sure his policies were efficiently administered, Laud used ‘Thorough’, which was designed by Wentworth to improve accountability. This involved ordering Bishops to live in their diocese with commissioners visiting them to ensure the Bishop was enforcing uniformity. Clergy infringing these reforms were brought before the Court of High Commission, a prerogative court allowing the King to control the sentence, alluding to this idea of tyranny.  An example of this was Leighton’s case in 1630, where he was fined, lashed, had his ears cut off, his nose slit, and ears branded for attacking the bishops. Moreover, Laud wanted to make the church more fit for worship. There was an increase in ornate churches displaying the ‘beauty of holiness’ with candles, altar cloths, and stained-glass windows. This directly contradicts the nature of the Protestant country. The most radical change of the Church service was the altar being placed in the East end and railed off from the rest of the Church; this created the impression that the minister was of a separate class and able to mediate between the people and God. This combined with the extreme Protestant punishment would have increased the fear of Catholicism. The fact that the king of the Protestant country was validating Laud’s actions made him seem like he was promoting Arminianism and enforcing laws to do so; punishing anyone who did not comply. This would have caused opposition as Charles was alienating large sections of the population, thus demonstrating his disregard of the will of the people, depicting a tyrannical nature. It could be contended that Charles kept Laud in this power because Buckingham, James’ favourite, supported and praised Laud and Laud himself preached that Charles had the God-given right to rule by Divine Right, a view strongly held by Charles. However, James warned his son against Laud: ‘He hath a restless spirit which takes him to you, but in my soul, you will repent it.”. Therefore, it is irrefutable that Charles Personal Rule should be regarded as an Eleven Year Tyranny because he oppressively punished the people within society and allowed Laud to force his Romish reforms upon the Protestant populace which aroused fear and anger, in order to achieve his desire for Arminianism. 

Another way in which Charles engaged in tyranny through his Personal Rule was through the conduction of government. The government was made of Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, with all three necessary to ensure checks and balances and to avoid concentration of power. However, Charles had control over all three areas as he could choose the judges, bishops, and privy councillors. As a result, the public would inevitably perceive him as tyrannical even if it was not his intention. In regards to the local government, Charles had control over the Sheriffs, who were the administration of justice and collected taxes, the Lord Lieutenants who organised local defence and mobilized the country militias and the Constables and JP’s who collected taxes and enforced laws. Tyranny is present here as not only did Charles exploit the Sheriff by not paying them, but he could use them as and when he needed to collect unfair taxes or enforce unjust laws in many parts of England. This desire for ultimate control is reinforced through him governing regional councils. He had control over the councils in the North and the Welsh Marches; meaning his authority was present over a vast amount of land. Some would contend that through Charles introducing the Book of Orders in 1629 in which he gave JP’s instructions about the relief of poverty, this would suggest that he was not in fact a tyrannical leader but one that was doing what was best for his country which would align with Sharp’s views of his Personal Rule being harmonious. On the other hand, it could be easily argued that he introduced this so that he could have control in all layers of society. Therefore, while it could be argued that Charles was doing what he thought was best for his country, ultimately it is logical to assume that he was tyrannical as he desired control over all government, with government agents as puppets in his desire for ultimate control. 

Charles’ image is another way in which we might see him as engaging in tyranny. Charles’ unexpected ascension to the throne led him to be overprotective over his position. Furthermore, Charles ruled by divine right, meaning he believed he was only answerable to God. This belief stemmed from James’ Basilikon Doron and evident in practice through his repeated dismissal of Parliament from 1625 to 1629; he felt that he did not need to be advised or comply with anyone but God. Moreover, Charles was disconnected from his country. This could have been because he indulged in that element of sovereignty and a godlike figure and therefore, felt he did not need to connect with his country. Charles began to surround himself with a select group of people such as the princes of the blood and king’s personal servants and access to Charles was strictly regulated insinuating that he did not want to be surrounded by many people. This would have inevitably had a negative effect, resulting in his country perceiving him as this omnipotent figure who did not consider how the impact of his actions would affect them. We must also consider Charles’ masques. These were spectacular stage performances that were filled with extravagance and technology such as mechanical engines for special effects. These masques had a persistent theme of authority, which also had underlying emphasis on the importance of royal sovereignty and how England aristocracy had timeless power. Therefore, this depicts Charles’ Personal Rule as an Eleven Year Tyranny as he was aware and celebrating the supreme power that he had. This combined with the fact that he was using it in a negative way to exploit others shows him wanting to have this ultimate and tyrannical ruling.

It could be argued that in fact Charles pursued absolutism rather than tyranny, evidencing a desire for ultimate sovereignty and control but not the tyrannical oppression and exploitation.  The argument for absolutism is supported by the fact that most of the portraits of the king remained in royal places away from the public, perhaps highlighting how Charles was indifferent to his public image, whereas a tyrant would want the public to be aware of his sovereignty. However, it is still evident that Charles saw himself as increasingly more powerful through the comparison of two portraits. In 1631 Mytens completed a portrait of Charles, where he appears approachable and grounded because of his slightly awkward stance and expressionless but calm facial expression. This welcoming feeling is amplified through the placement of the crown. With it being placed beside him instead of on his head highlights how his kinship and divine power is acknowledged but Charles himself does not want to be defined by that and instead wants to be seen as a person before the title of the king. However, in 1635, Van Dyck completed a portrait of Charles in 1635. At this point, Charles had conducted Personal Rule for six years and it is clear how his personal perception transformed. Within this piece Charles has a powerful stance with his hand firmly on his hip conveying how he is now a king who is ruled by divine right and is not to be approached without permission.  This is further depicted through the majestic horse to the right, portraying this feeling of active power and wealth. Divinity is further exemplified through the background of nature. Charles is removed from his traditional court setting and is now standing in and is a part of God’s creation, highlighting how he is now closer to God and his kingdom. Therefore, it is clear that Charles was aware of his power and dominance. This now goes beyond just absolutism because Charles used this power to put himself on a celebrated pedestal as seen through the masques while his oppressive policies that he was implementing were harming the society beneath him.

In conclusion, historians should regard Charles’ Personal Rule as an Eleven Year Tyranny. This is because of his recurring exploitation of people through his sources of revenue, in regard to his local government and religion. While some may argue that he was trying to do what was best for his country, ultimately, he was fully aware of the power he had as he proudly showcased that and perpetuated that through his patronage of the arts, including portraits and masques.

Pages: 1 2