How Important Was Opposition to Religious Reforms in the Years After 1633 in Bringing an End to the Personal Rule of Charles I

616 Words3 Pages
How important was opposition to religious reforms in the years after 1633 in bringing an end to the Personal Rule of Charles I The opposition to religious reforms was absolutely integral to bringing the end the personal rule. The manner of Charles religious reforms showed, as revisionist Barry Coward has stated, “underlying discontent” which was to culminate in the collapse of Charles’ authority and bring an end to the personal rule. I do believe, however, that opposition to contextual factors, such as finance, link in with religion and why the foundations for explaining why opposition to religious reforms brought Charles personal rule to an end. It is safe to say that Charles’ religious reforms brought much opposition that was to be extremely detrimental to his authority. In England, Charles’s imposition of such means the “placing of altars”, mentioned in Source B, and the prominence of catholics at court also mentioned in B, created underlying discontent. Furthermore, Charles imposition of the beauty of Holiness and the abolishment of the fed fees impropriations in 1633 made puritans extremely fearful of the apparent catholic tendencies of charles. These changes did not create truly vocalised opposition for several years. The case of John Williams and his challenge to the altar policy and the early use of Prynne are evidence, I believe of how vocalised opposition to the religious reforms was of vital importance to the collapse of the Personal rule. The general build in opposition, e.g. the case of Lilburne and Prynne, Barton Badwick, are evidence of how, by 30 vocalised opposition to Charles and Laud’s reforms I believe began to completely undermine charles’ authority and thus begin to bring an end to the personal rule. Without the imposition of Laudianism in Scotland, opposition to Charles’s religious reforms would not have brought an
Open Document