|
a.
|
Note: amously engaged in a struggle for power with the Parliament of England. He was an advocate of the Divine Right of Kings,[2] which was the belief that kings received their power from God and thus could not be deposed (unlike the similar Mandate of Heaven). Many of his English subjects feared that he was attempting to gain absolute power. Many of his actions, particularly the levying of taxes without Parliament's consent, caused widespread opposition.[3]
Religious conflicts permeated Charles' reign. He married a Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria of France, over the objections of Parliament and public opinion.[4][5] He further allied himself with controversial religious figures, including the ecclesiastic Richard Montagu and William Laud, whom Charles appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Many of Charles's subjects felt this brought the Church of England too close to Roman Catholicism. Charles's later attempts to force religious reforms upon Scotland led to the Bishops' Wars that weakened England's government and helped precipitate his downfall.
His last years were marked by the English Civil War, in which he fought the forces of the English and Scottish Parliaments, which challenged his attempts to augment his own power, and the Puritans, who were hostile to his religious policies and supposed Catholic sympathies. Charles was defeated in the First Civil War (1642�45), after which Parliament expected him to accept its demands for a constitutional monarchy. He instead remained defiant by attempting to forge an alliance with Scotland and escaping to the Isle of Wight. This provoked the Second Civil War (1648�49) and a second defeat for Charles, who was subsequently captured, tried, convicted, and executed for high treason. The monarchy was then abolished and a republic called the Commonwealth of England, also referred to as the Cromwellian Interregnum, was declared. Charles's son, Charles II, became king after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.[3] In that same year, Charles I was canonized by the Church of England, and is referred to as "St. Charles Stuart" in the calendar of saints of the Church of England and of the Anglican Church of Canada.[6] His commemoration day is 30 January, the anniversary of his death.
Early life
The second son of James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark, Charles was born in Dunfermline, Fife, on 19 November, 1600,[3][7] and, until the age of three, was unable to walk or talk. His paternal grandmother was Mary, Queen of Scots, who had been beheaded by order of Elizabeth I of England on 8 February, 1587.
When Elizabeth died in March 1603 and James VI of Scotland became King of England as James I, Charles was originally left in Scotland in the care of nurses and servants because it was feared that the journey would damage his fragile health.[8] He did make the journey in July 1604 and was subsequently placed under the charge of Alletta (Hogenhove) Carey, the Dutch-born wife of courtier Sir Robert Carey, who taught him how to walk and talk and insisted that he wear boots made of Spanish leather and brass to help strengthen his weak ankles. When Charles was an adult, he was 5 feet 3 inches (162 cm) tall.
Charles was not as valued as his elder brother, Henry, Prince of Wales; Charles himself adored Henry and tried to emulate him. In 1603, Charles was created Duke of Albany, with the subsidiary titles Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch the sixth, in Scotland. Two years later, Charles was created Duke of York, which is customary in the case of the Sovereign's second son.
When his elder brother died of typhoid at the age of 18 in 1612, two weeks before Charles's 12th birthday, Charles became heir apparent (and the eldest living son of the sovereign, thus automatically gaining several titles including Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay) and was subsequently created the Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in November 1616. His sister Elizabeth married Frederick V, Elector Palatine in 1613 and moved to Heidelberg. Charles as Prince of Wales by Isaac Oliver, 1615.The new Prince of Wales was greatly influenced by his father's favourite, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham.[9]. Although Parliament attempted to force James I's hand in terms of foreign policy by making the vote on taxation dependent upon a declaration of war upon Spain, in January 1622 James dissolved the Parliament. Moreover, Charles, together with Buckingham travelled incognito to Spain the following year in an attempt to reach agreement on the long-pending Spanish Match between Charles and Infanta Maria Anna of Spain, the daughter of King Philip III of Spain; a move which James I saw as potentially paving a way for peace in Europe. The trip ended as an embarrassing failure however, as the Spanish demanded that Charles convert to Roman Catholicism and remain in Spain for a year after the wedding as hostage to ensure England's compliance with all the terms of the treaty. Charles was outraged, and upon their return in October, he and Buckingham demanded that King James declare war on Spain. With the encouragement of his Protestant advisers, James summoned Parliament so that he could request subsidies for a war. James also requested that Parliament sanction the marriage between the Prince of Wales and Princess Henrietta Maria of France, whom Charles had met in Paris while en route to Spain. It was a good match since she was a sister of Louis XIII (their father, Henry IV, had died during her childhood). Although Parliament agreed to the marriage, the episode soured Charles' alliance with the Puritans. Furthermore, Parliament as a whole remained extremely critical of the prior attempts to arrange a marital alliance with Spain. By 1624, James was growing senile, and as a result was finding it extremely difficult to control Parliament�the same problem would later haunt Charles during his reign. By the time of James death, February 1625,Charles and the Duke of Buckingham had already achieved de facto control of the Kingdom.
Scottish and English Royalty
House of Stuart
Charles I
Charles II James II & VII Henry, Duke of Gloucester Mary, Princess Royal Henrietta, Duchess of Orl�ans Elizabeth Both Charles and James were advocates of the divine right of kings, but whilst James' lofty ambitions were tempered by compromise and consensus with his subjects, Charles I was shy and diffident, but also self-righteous, stubborn, opinionated, determined and confrontational. Charles believed he had no need to compromise or even explain his rules and that he was answerable only to God, famously stating: "Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone".[10][11] "I mean to show what I should speak in actions." Those actions were open to misinterpretation, and there were fears as early as 1626 that he was a potential tyrant.
Oath of Allegiance
Although the concept of the Oath of Allegiance was founded upon the principles of the Magna Carta, early modern usage of such an oath was instituted by James I and extensively broadened under the reign of Charles. The text of the Oath of Allegiance to Charles read as follows;
I A. B. doe truely and sincercly acknowledge, professe, testifie and declare in my conscience before God and the world, That our Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES, is lawfull King of this Realme, and of all other His Majesties Dominions and Countreyes: And that the Pope neither of himselfe, nor by any Authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, or by an other meanes with any other, hath any power or Authority to depose the king, or to dispose of any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions, or to Authorize any Forraigne Prince, to invade or annoy Him or His Countreyes, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to His Majestie, or to give Licence or leave to any of them to beare Armes, raise Tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to His Majesties Royall person, State or Government, or to any of His Majesties Subjects within His Majesties Dominions. Also I doe sweare from my heart, that, notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his Successors, or by any Authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him or his Sea, against the said King, His Heires or Successors, or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience; I will bear faith and true allegiance to His Majestie, His Heires and Successors, and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatoever, which shall be made against His or their Persons, their Crowne and Dignitie, by reason or colour of any such Sentence, or Declaration or otherwise, and will doe my best endevour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, His Heires and Successors, all Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies which I shall know or heare of to be against Him, or any of them. And l do further sweare, That I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position, That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I doe beleeve, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof; which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to bee lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I doe plainely and sincerely acknowledge and sweare, according to these expresse words by me spoken, and according to the plaine and common sence and understanding of the same words, without any Equivocation, or mentall evasion or secret reservasion whatsoever. And I doe make this Recognition and acknowledgement heartily, willingly, and truely, upon the true Faith of a Christian. So helpe me GOD. [12]
Early reign
On 11 May, 1625, Charles was married by proxy to Henrietta Maria. In his first Parliament, which he opened in May, many members were opposed to his marriage to Henrietta Maria, a Roman Catholic, fearing that Charles would lift restrictions on Roman Catholics and undermine the official establishment of Protestantism. Although he stated to Parliament that he would not relax restrictions relating to recusants, he promised to do exactly that in a secret marriage treaty with Louis XIII of France. Moreover, the price of marriage with the French princess was a promise of English aid for the French crown in the suppressing of the Protestant Huguenots at La Rochelle, thereby reversing England's long held position in the French Wars of Religion. The couple were married in person on 13, June 1625 in Canterbury and Charles himself was crowned on 2 February, 1626 at Westminster Abbey, but without his wife at his side due to the controversy. Charles and Henrietta had seven children, with three sons and three daughters surviving infancy.[13]
Sir Anthony Van Dyck: Charles I painted in April 1634Distrust of Charles's religious policies increased with his support of a controversial ecclesiastic, Richard Montagu. In a pamphlet, Montagu had argued against the teachings of John Calvin, thereby bringing himself into disrepute amongst the Puritans. After a Puritan member of the House of Commons, John Pym, attacked Montagu's pamphlet during debate, Montagu requested the king's aid in another pamphlet entitled "Appello Caesarem" (Latin "I appeal to Caesar", a reference to an appeal against Jewish persecution made by Saint Paul the Apostle).[14] Charles made the cleric one of his royal chaplains, increasing many Puritans' suspicions as to where Charles would lead the Church, fearing that his favouring of Arminianism was a clandestine attempt on Charles' part to aid the resurgence of Catholicism within the English Church.
Charles's primary concern during his early reign was foreign policy. The Thirty Years' War, originally confined to Bohemia, was spiralling out of control into a wider war between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. In 1620, Frederick V, Elector Palatine, the husband of Charles's sister Elizabeth, had lost his hereditary lands in the Palatinate to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II. Having agreed to help his brother-in-law regain the Palatinate, Charles declared war on Spain, hoping to force the Catholic Spanish King Philip IV to intercede with the Emperor on Frederick's behalf. Parliament preferred an inexpensive naval attack on Spanish colonies in the New World, hoping that the capture of the Spanish treasure fleets could finance the war. Charles, however, preferred more aggressive (and more expensive) action on the Continent. Parliament only voted to grant a subsidy of �140,000; an insufficient sum for Charles. Moreover, the House of Commons limited its authorization for royal collection of tonnage and poundage (two varieties of customs duties) to a period of one year, although previous sovereigns since 1414 had been granted the right for life. In this manner, Parliament could keep a check on expenditures by forcing Charles to seek the renewal of the grant each year. Charles's allies in the House of Lords, led by the Duke of Buckingham, refused to pass the bill. Although no Parliamentary authority for the levy of tonnage and poundage was obtained, Charles continued to collect the duties anyway.
The war with Spain went badly, largely due to Buckingham's incompetent leadership. Despite Parliament's protests, however, Charles refused to dismiss him, dismissing Parliament instead. He then provoked further unrest by trying to raise money for the war through a "forced loan" -- a tax levied without Parliamentary consent. Although partially successful in collecting the tax, Charles let the money dribble away in yet another military fiasco led by Buckingham. Summoned again in 1628, Parliament adopted a Petition of Right on 26 May, calling upon the king to acknowledge that he could not levy taxes without Parliament's consent, impose martial law on civilians, imprison them without due process, or quarter troops in their homes. Charles assented to the petition, though he continued to claim the right to collect customs duties without authorization from Parliament.
Despite Charles' agreement to suppress La Rochelle as a condition of marrying Henrietta Maria, Charles reneged upon his earlier promise amd instead launched a poorly conceived and executed defense of the fortress under the leadership of Buckingham in 1628 - thereby driving a wedge between the English and French Crowns that was not surmounted for the duration of the 30 Years' War. Buckingham's failure to protect the Huguenots - indeed, his very presence spurred Louis XIII attack on the fortress - furthered Parliament's detestation of the Duke and the king's close proximity to this 'eminence grise'. On 12 June, 1625, the House of Commons launched a direct protestation, stating, 'We protest before your Majesty and the whole world that until this great person be removed from intermeddling with the great affairs of state, we are out of hope of any good success; and we do fear that any money we shall or can give will, through his misemployment, be turned rather to the hurt and prejudice of your kingdom.'
On 23 August, 1628, Buckingham was assassinated. The public rejoicing at his death accentuated the gulf between the court and the nation, and between the crown and the Commons. Although the death of Buckingham effectively ended the war with Spain and eliminated his leadership as an issue, it did not end the conflicts between Charles and Parliament over taxation and religious matters.[15]
Personal Rule
"Charles I, King of England, from Three Angles", the "Triple Portrait" by Anthony van Dyck.In January 1629, Charles opened the second session of the Parliament, which had been prorogued in June 1628, with a moderate speech on the tonnage and poundage issue. Members of the House of Commons began to voice their opposition in light of the Rolle case, in which the autonomous MP had had his goods confiscated for failing to pay tonnage and poundage. Many MPs viewed the confiscation as a breach of the Petition of Right,[16] arguing that the petition's freedom-from-arrest privilege extended to goods. When Charles ordered a parliamentary adjournment in March, members held the Speaker, Sir John Finch, down in his chair whilst resolutions against Catholicism, Arminianism and poundage and tonnage were read out. The latter most resolution declared that anyone who paid tonnage or poundage not authorised by Parliament would "be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy to the same", and, although the resolution was not formally passed, many members declared their approval. That a number of MPs had to be detained in Parliament is relevant in understanding that there was no universal opposition towards the King. Nevertheless, the provocation was too much for Charles, who dissolved parliament the same day.[17][18] Moreover, eight parliamentary leaders, including Eliot, were imprisoned on the foot of the matter, thereby turning these men into martyrs, and giving popular cause to a protest that had hitherto been losing its bearings.
Immediately following the proroguing of Parliament, Charles made peace with France and Spain. The following eleven years, during which Charles ruled without a Parliament, are referred to as the Personal Rule or the Eleven Years' Tyranny. (Ruling without Parliament, though an exceptional exercise of the royal prerogative, was supported by precedent. By the middle of the 17th century, opinion shifted, and many held the Personal Rule to be an illegitimate exercise of arbitrary, absolute power.)
Economic problems
The reigns of Elizabeth I and James I had generated a large fiscal deficit for the kingdom. Notwithstanding the failure of Buckingham in the short lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was in reality little economic capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas. Now, despite peace, without the consent of Parliament Charles' capacity to acquire funds in order to maintain his treasury was theoretically hamstrung, legally at least. To raise revenue without reconvening Parliament, Charles first resurrected an all-but-forgotten law called the "Distraint of Knighthood," promulgated in 1279, which required anyone who earned �40 or more each year to present himself at the King's coronation to join the royal army as a knight. Relying on this old statute, Charles fined all individuals who had failed to attend his coronation in 1626.
Later, Charles reintroduced obsolete feudal taxes such as purveyance, wardship, and forest laws. Chief amoung these taxes was one known as ship money, which proved even more unpopular, and lucrative, than poundage and tonnage before it. Under statutes of Edward I and Edward III, collection of ship money had been authorized only during wars, and only on coastal regions. Charles, however, argued that there was no legal bar to collecting the tax during peacetime and throughout the whole of the kingdom. Although the first writ levying ship money, issued in 1634, did not provoke much immediate opposition, the second and third writs, issued in 1635 and 1636 aroused serious dissent as Charles' intention became clear. Many attempted to resist payment, but the royal courts declared that the tax was within the King's prerogative. The collection was a major concern to the ruling class. Personal Rule ended after the attempted enforcement of the Anglican and increasingly Arminian styled prayer book under Laud that precipitated a rebellion in Scotland in 1640.[19]
Religious conflicts
Charles wished to move the Church of England away from Calvinism in a more traditional and sacramental direction.[20] This goal was shared by his main political adviser, Archbishop William Laud. Laud was appointed by Charles as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633,[21][22] and started a series of unpopular reforms in an attempt to impose order and authority on the church. Laud attempted to ensure religious uniformity by dismissing non-conformist clergymen and closing Puritan organizations. This was actively hostile to the Reformed tendencies of many of his king's English and Scottish subjects. His policy was obnoxious to Calvinist theology, and insisted that the Church of England's liturgy be celebrated using the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. Laud was also an advocate of Arminian theology, a view whose emphasis on the ability to reject salvation was viewed as heretical and virtually "Catholic" by strict Calvinists.
William Laud shared Charles's views on CalvinismTo punish those who refused to accept his reforms, Laud used the two most feared and most arbitrary courts in the land, the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber. The former could compel individuals to provide self-incriminating testimony, whilst the latter, essentially an extension of the Privy Council, could inflict any punishment whatsoever (including torture), with the sole exception of death.
The lawlessness of the Court of Star Chamber under Charles far exceeded that under any of his predecessors. Under Charles's reign, defendants were regularly hauled before the Court without indictment, due process of the law, or right to confront witnesses, and their testimonies were routinely extracted by the Court through torture. The first years of the Personal Rule were marked by peace in England, to some extent due to tighter central control. Several individuals opposed Charles's taxes and Laud's policies. For example, in 1634, the ship 'Griffin' left for America carrying religious dissidents, such as the Puritan minister Anne Hutchinson. However, when Charles attempted to impose his religious policies in Scotland he faced numerous difficulties. The King ordered the use of a new Prayer Book modelled on the English Book of Common Prayer, which, although supported by the Scottish Bishops, was resisted by many Presbyterian Scots, who saw the new Prayer Book as a vehicle for introducing Anglicanism to Scotland. In 1637, spontaneous unrest erupted throughout the Kirk upon the first Sunday of its usage, and the public began to mobilise around rebellious nobles in the form of the National Covenant. When the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland abolished Episcopalian government (that is, governance of the Church by bishops) in 1638, replacing it with Presbyterian government (that is, governance by elders and deacons), Charles sought to put down what he saw as a rebellion against his authority.
In 1639, when the First Bishops' War broke out, Charles failed in his attempts to collect taxes from his English subjects in order to organise an armed response against the Covenanters. Charles could not effectively wage war and was thus forced into a humiliating truce in June of the same year. In the Pacification of Berwick, Charles agreed to grant his Scottish subjects civil and ecclesiastical freedoms.
Charles's military failure in the First Bishops' War in turn caused a financial and military crisis for Charles, which caused the end of Personal Rule. Due to his financial weakness, Charles was forced to call Parliament into session by 1640 in an attempt to raise funds. While the ruling class's grievances with the changes to government and finance during the Personal Rule period were a contributing factor in the Scottish Rebellion, the key issue of religion was the main reason that forced Charles to confront the ruling class in Parliament for the first time in eleven years. In essence, it was Charles's and Laud's confrontational religious modifications that ended what the Whig historians refer to as "The Eleven Years of Tyranny". The Second Bishops' War
Charles immediately sought to redress his grievances with the Church of Scotland, taking the fateful step of recalling Parliament in April 1640. Although Charles offered to repeal ship money, and the House of Commons agreed to allow Charles to raise the funds for war, an impasse was reached when Parliament demanded the discussion of various abuses of power during the Personal Rule. Both sides refused to give ground on this matter, and in the General Election in March, court candidates fared badly. The Parliamentarians' calls for further reforms were ignored by Charles, who still maintained the support of the House of Lords. Parliament was dissolved in May 1640, less than a month after it assembled; thus, the Parliament became known as the "Short Parliament."[23] Portrait of Charles I with Seignior de St AntoineBy this stage Wentworth, who was promoted to Earl of Strafford in January 1640, had emerged as Charles' right hand man. Although originally a major critic of the king, he defected to royal service in 1628, since emerging as a more than capable lieutenant. Having trained up a large army in Ireland in support of the king, and seriously weakened the authority the Irish Parliament, particularly the members of parliament belonging to the Old English, Strafford had been instrumental in obtaining an independent source of royal revenue and forces in the three kingdoms. As the Scottish Parliament declared itself capable of governing without the king's consent and, in September 1640, moved into Northumber, Strafford was sent north to command the English forces. The Scottish forces, many of whom were veterans of the Thirty Years' War, had far greater morale and training compared to their English counterparts, and met virtually no resistance until reaching Newcastle where, at the Battle of Newburn, the town�and hence England's coal supply�fell into the hands of the Covenanter forces. The English forces based at York were unable to mount a counterattack due to Strafford suffering from a serious case of gout.
On the 24th of September Charles took the unusual step of summoning the magnum concilium, the ancient council of all the Peers of the Realm, who were considered the King's hereditary counsellors, who recommended recalling Parliament. However, events overtook the King as the Covenanters took the initiative and marched on York, thereby forcing Charles to agree to the humiliating Treaty of Ripon, signed after the end in October 1640, whereby the Scots would continue to occupy Newcastle and be paid �850 per day, until peace was restored and the English Parliament called. That November Charles summoned what became known as the Long Parliament. Of the 493 MPs of the Commons, 399 were opposed to the king, and only 94 could be counted on, by Charles, for support.
The "Long Parliament"
The Long Parliament assembled in November 1640 under the leadership of John Pym, and proved just as difficult for Charles as the Short Parliament. Although the members of the House of Commons thought of themselves as conservatives defending the King, Church and Parliamentary government against innovations in religion and the tyranny of Charles's advisors, Charles viewed many of them as dangerous rebels trying to undermine his rule.
To prevent the King from dissolving it at will, Parliament passed the Triennial Act, to which the Royal Assent was granted in February 1641. The Act required that Parliament was to be summoned at least once every three years, and that when the King failed to issue proper summons, the members could assemble on their own. In May, he assented to an even more far-reaching Act, which provided that Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent. Charles was forced into one concession after another. He agreed to bills of attainder authorising the executions of Thomas Wentworth and William Laud. Ship money, fines in destraint of knighthood and forced loans were declared unlawful, and the hated Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission were abolished. Although he made several important concessions, Charles improved his own military position by securing the favour of the Scots. He finally agreed to the official establishment of Presbyterianism; in return, he was able to enlist considerable anti-parliamentary support.
In March 1641 Strafford, who had become the immediate target of the Parliamentarians, went on trial for high treason. The incident provided a new departure for Irish politics whereby Old English, Gaelic Irish and New English settlers joined together in a legal body to present evidence against Strafford. However, the Lords opposed to the severity of the sentence of death imposed upon Strafford on the 22nd of March, and the evidence supplied by Vale in relation to Strafford's alleged improper use and threat to England via the Irish army was not upheld by another witness, and the case consequently began to flounder. Moreover, Strafford's life ultimately lay in Charles' hands as his execution could not go ahead unless the king signed the Bill of Attainer. Yet, increased tensions and an attempted coup by the army in favour of Strafford began to sway the issue. In the Commons the Bill went virtually unopposed (204 in favour, 59 oppose, 250 abstain), the Lords acquiesced, and Charles, fearing for the safety of his family, signed in May. In a similar manner as pursued by the English Parliament in their opposition to Buckingham, albeit from a far less disingenuous stance, the Old English within the Irish Parliament argued that their opposition to Strafford did not negate their loyalty to Charles and that Charles, rather, had been led astray by the malign influence of the Earl.
Note: Charles I, (19 November 1600 � 30 January 1649), the second son of James VI of Scotland and I of England, was King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 27 March 1625 until his execution.[1] Charles f
|
