Was Religion the most important cause for the breakdown in relations between crown and parliament in the years 1625-1629?
Religion was a major impact on Charles and Parliaments relationship causing major tension in the years 1625-1629; however there were other contributing factors, such as key individuals, finance, foreign policy and Charles’ own personality. Furthermore I do not agree with the statement that religion was the most important factor that caused the breakdown of relations between the crown and Parliament. Instead I believe finance and foreign policy to be the most important factors in the breakdown in relations.
When Charles became King in 1625 he favoured the principles of Arminianism – he placed order and uniformity above tact – despite many of members of Parliament, and the English society, preferred Puritanism. Throughout the beginning of Charles’ rule he would encourage and promote Arminianism, even those who openly attacked Puritans through writing. For example, in 1926, Laud began to provoke parliament by saying in a sermon ‘Puritans were meditating a revolution in both the state and the church’; instead of punishing Laud, Charles would eventually give him the title as Chancellor of Oxford University, and then went on to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. Another example is an Arminian cleric Richard Montagu, he wrote ‘An Old Gag for a New Goose’ and ‘Appello Caesarem’, which stressed the similarities between Catholicism and the Church of England, Charles would appoint him Royal Chaplain in 1625. Puritans around this time believed the Pope, leader of the Catholic Church was the antichrist or devil and so being compared to the Catholics was an unforgiveable insult; also to appoint Montagu as the Royal Chaplain meant that Charles identified Arminianism as the religion of England, this would only cause further tension with Puritans and Parliament. Charles also antagonized Parliament by getting Laud to preach the opening sermon, and stressing obedience to the King and supported Royal Prerogative and Divine Right; these actions saw Charles as pro- catholic, which
When Charles became King in 1625 he favoured the principles of Arminianism – he placed order and uniformity above tact – despite many of members of Parliament, and the English society, preferred Puritanism. Throughout the beginning of Charles’ rule he would encourage and promote Arminianism, even those who openly attacked Puritans through writing. For example, in 1926, Laud began to provoke parliament by saying in a sermon ‘Puritans were meditating a revolution in both the state and the church’; instead of punishing Laud, Charles would eventually give him the title as Chancellor of Oxford University, and then went on to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. Another example is an Arminian cleric Richard Montagu, he wrote ‘An Old Gag for a New Goose’ and ‘Appello Caesarem’, which stressed the similarities between Catholicism and the Church of England, Charles would appoint him Royal Chaplain in 1625. Puritans around this time believed the Pope, leader of the Catholic Church was the antichrist or devil and so being compared to the Catholics was an unforgiveable insult; also to appoint Montagu as the Royal Chaplain meant that Charles identified Arminianism as the religion of England, this would only cause further tension with Puritans and Parliament. Charles also antagonized Parliament by getting Laud to preach the opening sermon, and stressing obedience to the King and supported Royal Prerogative and Divine Right; these actions saw Charles as pro- catholic, which