Shehab Amin How important was Buckingham in the breakdown of relations 1625-29? Between the years 1625 and 1629 Charles’ favourite the Duke of Buckingham had a huge influence on English politics, the breakdown of relations between Crown and Parliament can be said to be because of how he used this power directly, for example the military failures at this time and relations with France, which he was directly behind. But as a separate point of conflict was religion, the rise of Armenianism. Other factors however such as tonnage & poundage, did cause problems with Charles but again without Buckingham these wouldn’t have been major points of conflict. In 1625 Buckingham decided England needed a new ally in Europe in France after the failure of the Spanish match, they could see diplomatic advantages, France was becoming worried about the successes of the Hapsburg Spanish and might be persuaded to take part against them.
The most important factor and root for all of the problems was Charles. Due to his personality and as he ruled by Personal Monarchy, this shaped how he deployed his prerogative. His policies throughout 1625-1629 were often extreme and passed as a reaction to what he felt was a threat from parliament and an act of disloyalty on their behalf, knowingly angering them. These provocative actions were very much resented by Parliament who felt he was threatening them and provoking them, thus causing the collapse within their relationship. The next most important reason for the collapse was religion and Charles’ push toward Arminianism and absolutism.
How important was the Duke of Buckingham to the breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament in the years of 1625-1629? Charles’ main advisor and partner in foreign policy was the Duke of Buckingham. Due to Buckingham being a wicked advisor led Charles to a disastrous foreign policy. This propelled him into confrontation with parliament. Buckingham had too much influence with the King; this meant he was seen as one of the main causes to the break down in parliament.
Henry’s unusual toleration of the Huguenots caused trouble for the native Catholics in France and angered Pope Clement but this toleration would somewhat prevail in the Edict of Nantes because of what the nation and the two factions suffered prior to its creation. The Edict of Nantes not only granted successions to both sides but they were far fairer to the Huguenots including the granting of their civil rights, the rights that they lost in the Edict of Boulogne. The Edict of Boulogne was a slap in the face for the Huguenots as it segregated them from modern society, permitting them to only preach in the towns of La Rochelle, Mountauban and Nimes and even with that, only in their own homes. No
The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
This made the contemporaries scandalised, it provoked negative thoughts with regards to both Buckingham and James. Their public displays of affection only served to bring the court into more disrepute, even if it was not unusual for a king to have favourites. Buckingham was a shrewd manipulator of the king. James went so far that he allowed him to involve himself in politic matters and decision-making. The parliament of January 1621 to 1622 started to revers the trend towards Buckingham's ever-expending power
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
Some may say that Henry was largely successful in achieving his aims with his biggest success being the battle of the spurs in 1513. Henry VIII want to be seen as a different king to his father who had a bad reputation for being aware of his money and not engaging in many wars which the nobilities did not like. He started by giving away the crowns land and gave many titles to the nobilities to prove that he would be different to his father. Catherine of Aragon, who had married Henry’s brother Arthur was still kept in England after Arthur had died. Henry had immediately married her after all the delays that his father had caused.
The origins of rebellion arose when people in England opposed Mary’s catholic standing and were worrying over the possible return of papal authority over England, since mary’s coronation was in 1553 she quickly placed people of catholic standing in positions within the kingdom, including many positions in the privy council the most influential body within the government. This quick changeover within England is arguably what caused the Wyatt rebellion as it made the people feel anxious of the possible threat of going back to a papal authority, this can be reinforced by the following source ‘and yet thhe it be said in counsel as to my friend, we mind only the restitution of God’s word, but no words!’qhich was written by wyatts son showing us that Wyatt was rebelling to the threat Mary posed to religion, but it can also be inferred that although this was his motive he felt that this reason wasn’t acceptable to cause a greater enough rebellion to remove Mary from the throne so he says that they should use a different reason, as generally it can be argued that Mary’s catholic influence across England were relatively popular, possibly why the rebellion was shown little support. There
* Sharpe acknowledged that the grounds for war were flimsy. * ‘Charles’ sense of wounded honour had initiated the conflict’ with Spain and England had merely ‘drifted’ into was with France, ‘not least as a consequence of the Duke of Buckingham’s personal quarrels with Cardinal Richelieu’. * With this being the case, why should Parliament be blamed for failing to maintain such wars arising from personal resentment? * Reeve’s “Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule” is, unlike Sharpe’s work, critical of Charles. * Having been forced into peace, Charles was inclined to stay at peace because of any resumption of wat would require a resemption of Parliament to pay for it.