This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
How important was religious opposition in bringing an end to Charles’ personal rule in 1640? Firstly, religious issues are the main ones, or resulted in the main reasons why Charles had to call parliament. He needed money as a result of the Bishop’s wars and therefore had to call parliament. However, there were other reasons including but not limited to political instability, influence from advisors and opposition from his own public both in England and Scotland. The Bishop’s wars were costly and were fought because a religious compromise couldn’t be found in Scotland. Therefore, this is both a monetary and religious reason why Charles had to end his personal rule. It is important because it provided much opposition for Charles in Scotland. Other opposition in Scotland was caused by the National Covenant which was signed by many as a confirmation of Presbyterianism and allegiance to the protestant church instead of the more Catholic Laudian practices that Charles was trying to introduce. The sheer mass of signitures created significant opposition for Charles, the Covenant also backed up the support for the Bishop’s wars which were fought against Charles. At this point in time, the majority of Scotland was again him. The Treaty of Ripon signed at the end of the second Bishop’s war forced Charles to call parliament because it was the only way he could find the money to pay the Scots. Ship money was no longer a viable option as it was only ever supposed to be an emergency tax and other tax policies were also sliding from Charles’ grip. He was losing support both monetary and in loyalty of his public. Laud had a large impact on the calling of parliament after eleven years of personal rule. Firstly, the Scottish didn’t like his religious reforms. He was one of the main reasons for the National Covenant. The Puritan gentry took the lead in demanding changes in parliament but were mostly unsuccessful. The new prayer book that Laud introduced was unpopular as it involved many Catholic ideas such as the glorification of the worship of God which was not what the Protestants liked to do. In 1640 protestant members of the Twelve Peers began to openly oppose Charles in parliament they were led by Pym who was particularly vocal and rebellious. The Twelve Peers had entered into an agreement with the covenanters and so when the Long parliament met, Pym urged for a more protestant church instead of Laud’s ideals. He also wanted to prosecute Strafford embroiled the problems in England with the King and Parliament, in particular the problems of the multiple Kingdoms ruled by Charles. So Laud’s religious policies had major impact on both the end of personal rule and what happened next but Laud also advised Charles to call parliament for money so he had influence in this way also. Hamilton’s mishandling of the Scottish general Assembly and the short parliament also had an impact on the end of personal rule. It highlighted political mistakes made by ministers and Wentworth’s belief that he could manage parliament. This all had influence on the bringing about of the short parliament.
Alex Jackson. religion was the main reason that parliament was called ending personal rule. . He needed to win this war in Scotland and so he needed money. (24 mark) history essay In conclusion. Charles needed money as a direct result of religious issues and parliament was the only way he could gather it as his other tax options were no longer viable dues to lack of enforcement and support.