To what extent does the personal rule by Charles I, from 1629-1640, deserve the description ‘the eleven years tyranny’? (By: Carys)

 

Can you imagine the differences between the ancient and modern worlds? Let's discuss this question to provide an answer. The technology available in the ancient era was limited. This indicates that we lacked the tools and machinery necessary to carry out our tasks. The only way to accomplish this without them was to depend on human labour. It was exhausting and time-consuming. The world had previously suffered from a number of malevolent challenges, such as poverty, slavery, and ruthless war. Women were not treated equally. In contrast, most nations have already achieved independence and peace in modern times. We are free to engage in the activities we desire. Women and men are treated equally in society. There are numerous machines and gadgets created. We can even go overseas too. No more slavery and poverty in this tremendous world.

There is a question here: what is meant by tyranny, which has long since vanished and is now entirely forgotten? Question: What is tyranny, which has already vanished and is now entirely forgotten? In the Greco-Roman world, it refers to an autocratic form of rule where one person exercised ability without any legal restraint. In antiquity, the term, tyrant, was not necessarily pejorative and signified the holder of absolute political power. In its modern utilization, the term , tyranny, is often pejorative and connotes the illegitimate possession or usage of such power. This is the evolution of the concept of tyranny. For the ancient Greeks, a tyrant was not necessarily a mean ruler; in its ordinary form, tyrannous, the term, was used to describe an individual who held absolute and personal power within a county, as is evident from a monarch whose authority was constrained by the law and the constitution. as is obvious from a monarch, whose rule was bound by constitution and law. Some tyrants were usurpers who became enlightened on their own; others were chosen to lead the kingdom; still others were forced to do so by outside forces. Others were chosen to govern the kingdom, while others were imposed by outside forces. These were usurpers who became enlightened on their own. who became enlightened on their own; others were chosen to govern the kingdom; still others were forced upon them by outside forces. enlightened through their own endeavours; others were chosen to govern the kingdom, and still others were imposed by outside forces. Others were chosen to govern the kingdom by their own efforts, while still others were imposed by outside forces, some were imposed by outside intervention, while others were chosen to govern the kingdom. Some were imposed by outside forces, while others were chosen to govern the kingdom. Others were imposed by outside intervention, while others were elected to govern the kingdom. chosen to govern the kingdom, but others were still imposed by outside forces. to rule the kingdom and still got others were imposed by external intervention. Specific rulers, such as Phalaris, tyrant of Akragas in Sicily, Italy, who allegedly ignited and burnt his enemies alive in a brazen bull, were bywords for unnavigated merciless and self-indulgence, but for others, like Pittakos and Mytilene, were commemorated favourably in upcoming resources as wise and moderate rulers who brought bounty and harmony to their metropolitans. Later, its classical history, however, the term slowly acquired more of its modern flavour, implying a ruler whose sole motivation was power and individual increase, and as a consequence, its use in public life becoming more controversial. The opinion of tyranny has therefore been at the centre of discussion about legitimacy in rulership and the balance of ability between ruler and people. Since Roman times philosophers have debated for the moral right of the citizen to overthrow a tyrant whatever the law and have discussed the point at which monarchic law becomes tyrannical.

Here is a question, to what extent does the individual rule by Charles I, from the year 1629 to 1640, deserve the description “the eleven years tyranny”? Before that, I am going to introduce who was Charles I. He was the ruler, or king of England, Scotland and Ireland from 27 March 1625 till his execution in the year 1649. This is the entire biography of Charles I ………………. He was born 19 November 1600 at Dunfermline Palace, Dunfermline, Scotland, into the House of Stuart. He was the second son of King James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark. At a Protestant ceremony in the Chapel Royal of Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh, which is now the capital of Scotland on 23 December 1600, he was baptised by David Lindsay, Bishop of Ross, and made Duke of Albany, the traditional topic of the second son of the king of Scotland. With the subsidiary titles of Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch. After his father, King James VI, inherited the English throne in the year 1603, he moved to England, where he spent much of the rest of his life there. He eventually became the heir apparent to the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland in the year 1612 after the mortality of his elder brother, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales. Unsuccessful and unpopular attempt to engage and marry him to Infanta Maria Anna of Spain culminated in an eight-month visit to Spain in the year 1623 that explained the futility of the marriage negotiations. After two years, shortly after his recession, he married Henrietta Maria of France.

After his recession in the year 1625, Charles I argued with the English Parliament, which sought to curb his royal prerogative, which is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity distinguished in ordinary law as belonging to the sovereign, and that have become immensely vested in the government. He believed that the divine right of kings, which is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy in Western Christianity up until the Enlightenment, and was determined to govern based on his own conscience. A lot of his subjects rejected his policies, in particular the levying of taxes without Parliamentary consent, and deserved his actions as those of a tyrannical absolute monarch. His religious policies, coupled with his marriage to a Roman Catholic, generated antipathy and mistrust from Reformed religious groups like the English Puritans and Scottish Covenanters, who thought that his views too Catholic. He supported high church Anglican ecclesiastics and failed to help continental Protestant forces successfully during the Thirty Year’s War from the year 1618 to 1648. His attempts to force the Church of Scotland to adopt high Anglican practices led to the wars of the bishops, the two sequestered conflicts from the year 1639 and 1640 between England and Scotland, where Scottish Royalties allied to England, strengthened the position of the English and Scottish parliaments, and helped precipitate his own downfall. From the year 1642, Charles I battled against the armies of the English and Scottish parliaments in the English Civil War. After his defeat in the year 1645 At the hands of the Parliamentarian New Model Army, he fled north from his base at Oxford, England. Charles, I surrendered to a Scottish force and, after lengthy arguments between the English and Scottish parliaments, was handed over to the Long Parliament in England. Charles, I opposed the captors’ demand for a constitutional monarchy and temporarily flee from the captivity in November 1947. Therefore, he was reimprisoned on the Isle of Wight, the island off the south coast of England, which, together with its surroundings of uninhabited islets and skerries, is also a ceremonial county. He also forged an alliance with Scotland, but, by the end of the year 1648, the New Model Army had consolidated it navigation over England. Charles I was tried, convicted, and executed for high treason in January 1649. The monarchy was abolished, and the Commonwealth of England was formed as a republic. The monarchy was then restored in the year 1660, with Charles I’s son, Charles II as king.

Now, I am coming back to answer the question as I mentioned just now. The period from the year 1629 to 1640, also known as the Personal Rule of the Eleven Years’ Tyranny, was the time when Charles I of England governed without Parliament. The term, tyranny, mirrors the view of his opponents, specifically Parliamentarians, who saw his rule as autocratic and oppressive. To assess whether this label is affiliated, I am going to investigate the key perspectives of his governance……...First and foremost, his rule without parliament. Charles I dissolved Parliament in the year 1629 after conflicts over taxation, religion, and foreign policy. He believed in the divine rights of kings, opposing parliamentary constraints on his authority. While ruling without Parliament was legal, where no law required its summoning, it was politically contentious, as Parliament traditionally approved taxes and legislation.

Next, to talk about financial policies, which are the extra-legal taxation, to fund his government without Parliament, Charles I uses controversial mechanisms, such as shipping the money from the year 1639 to 1640, where a medieval tax for coastal defence, extended nationwide without approval from the parliament. This was hindered in Rex v. Hampden in the year 1637, but the courts upheld the kings’ right. He forced loans and monopolies, where he demanded loans from wealthy subjects and sold monopolies, enraging merchants and gentry. Forest fines and distraint of knighthood are imposed too, which are heft fines on landowners for encroaching on royal forests and forced knighthood payments. These measures were seen as arbitrary taxation, bypassing Parliament’s traditional role.

Another aspect I am going to mention is religious policies, which are Laudian Reforms. Archbishop William Laud had an influence on Charles I, who imposed High Church Anglicanism. For example, the altar policy, which mandates that communion tables be placed in the east end, or altarwise, is perceived as having a Catholic slant. Preaching was restricted, Puritan critics were persecuted, and uniformity was enforced as a means of suppressing Puritanism. Furthermore, the implementation of the Book of Common Prayer in Scotland in 1637 resulted in the 1639–1640 Bishops' Wars, which compelled Charles I to call a meeting of Parliament. They fueled opposition because these policies alienated Calvinists and Puritans. Furthermore, Puritan pamphleteers like William Prynne, John Bestwick, and Henry Burton were among the opponents of political repression that the Star Chamber court used to prosecute. These cases frequently resulted in severe penalties like mutilations and incarceration. severe restrictions on censorship, political dissent, and printing. I'll wrap up by talking about foreign policy failures. England's standing in the Thirty Years' War was weakened by Charles I's lack of parliamentary support. His peace agreements, like those with France and Spain, were viewed as demeaning and feeble. There is disagreement among Charles I's supporters regarding whether or not his reign merits the Eleven Years of Tyranny because he stayed stable and governed within his legal rights. There is disagreement among Charles I's supporters regarding whether or not his reign merits the Eleven Years of Tyranny because he stayed stable and governed within his legal rights.

To consider whether Charles I’s rule deserves the Eleven Years of Tyranny or not, there are his supporters debate he governed within his legal rights and remained stability. In the other hand, there are some critics, especially Parliamentarians, saw his rule as autocratic, bypassing constitutional traditions, imposing unfair taxes, and suppressing religious and political freedom.

In conclusion, even though the word "tyranny" is divisive, Charles I's personal reign was characterized by financial exploitation, authoritarian rule, and religious coercion, which is how his opponents saw him. His policies sowed discontent, leading to the English Civil War from the year 1642 to 1651. Therefore, the description, Eleven Years of Tyranny, is historically meaningful, mirroring the contemporary grievances, even if modern historians might discuss its severity. The word is tremendously justified given Charles I’s extra-legal taxations, suppression of dissent, and disregard for constitutional norms. Right now, there is no more tyranny in this world; instead, democracy is presented. Therefore, let’s appreciate democracy to establish a better world for the future.