The English Civil War

James came from Scotland, where kings held broader authority. In England, Parliament expected to be consulted on taxation and legislation. James found this irritating.

He believed firmly in the divine right of kings. God had appointed him to rule, and no human institution had the right to question that. Parliament heard this and disagreed.

“The new king believed he answered only to God. Parliament believed someone should answer to them.”

Religion added its own pressure. Puritans hoped James would reform the church further. Catholics hoped for toleration. Both were disappointed. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 showed how far some were willing to go.

James ruled for over two decades, but the underlying tension between crown and Parliament never went away. His son Charles would inherit not just a throne, but an argument that had been building for years.

Charles was proud, reserved, and deeply convinced of his royal rights. He found parliamentary criticism almost personally offensive.

From the start there were arguments about money. Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles funds without attaching conditions. Charles tried to raise money in other ways. That made Parliament angrier.

“Every argument about money was really an argument about who was in charge.”

Charles had a powerful favourite — George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham — who was blamed for military disasters and deeply unpopular with Parliament. When Parliament tried to impeach him, Charles dissolved Parliament instead.

The Petition of Right in 1628 briefly settled things, with Charles agreeing not to imprison people without lawful cause or levy taxes without consent. He accepted, got his money, and then largely ignored the agreement.

Charles was not cruel, but he could not accept that others had legitimate claims on his power. That inability would eventually prove fatal.

Without Parliament, Charles needed to find other ways to raise money. One method was ship money — a tax traditionally charged only to coastal towns for naval defence. Charles extended it to the whole country.

People resented this deeply. They believed no tax could be levied without Parliament's agreement. Ship money felt like a royal attempt to bypass the constitution entirely.

“Raising money without Parliament was not just unpopular. Many believed it was illegal.”

Religion caused just as much trouble. Charles's Archbishop William Laud pushed for more ceremony in church services. To many Puritans, this looked like Catholicism coming in through the back door.

These eleven years ended not because Charles chose to call Parliament back, but because Scotland forced his hand. The Personal Rule had not resolved the tensions between crown and Parliament. It had simply delayed them — and made them far worse.