how far was buckingham influence on charles the main reason for personal rule

How far was Buckingham’s influence on Charles the main reason that Charles resorted to Personal rule?
Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.
Buckingham formed a very close relationship with Charles which many MP’s feared. This close relationship and the amount of power that Buckingham possessed, often led to arguments between the King and Parliament, which eventually led to the king adopting personal rule. Buckingham monopolised Patronage at court, and advancement in Office was only approved with Buckingham support. Many MP’s were suspicious of his close relationship with both Charles 1 and James 1, and despised the fact that they could only gain advancement in the career with his consent. Furthermore Buckingham had arranged the marriage of Charles and Henrietta Maria who was Catholic. Many MP’s thought Buckingham was trying to introduce Catholicism in England, which they thought would threaten the ancient liberties of the Church of England. The king’s protection of Buckingham led to Parliament being dissolved which angered many MPs. In 1626 Parliament attempted to Impeach Buckingham, however the King stopped this by dissolving Parliament which prevented them from passing the subsidies which the King needed. These show how Buckingham’s action caused disputes between the King and Parliament, which eventually led to the king adopting Personal Rule as he thought he could manage without Parliament. However it can be argued that Buckingham wasn’t the main cause of why Charles introduced Personal Rule. Firstly Buckingham was assassinated before Personal Rule was introduced. If Buckingham was the cause of the arguments between Parliament and the King, after his death the King and Parliament could have reconciled and therefore avoided Personal Rule. The fact that the King just split the titles that Buckingham held between a small group of people who he used as his advisers during Personal Rule, help strengthen the Argument that Buckingham wasn’t the main cause of why Charles introduced Personal Rule.
Another factor that can be attributed to the implementation of Personal Rule is Religious grievances. Firstly his marriage to Henrietta Maria, who was Catholic, caused much suspicion. Parliament felt that as she was openly allowed to practise her religion, with her bishops that she would try and persuade the king to adopt Catholicism in England. This added an ideological element into the political struggle which further caused disagreements between the king and Parliament. In addition to this unlike James 1, Charles didn’t stay religiously central. His promotion of Armenian Clergy was seen by puritans as an attempt to introduce Catholicism under a different name. The Church of England was very important to many MP’s, and the fear of Roman Catholicism, lead to Parliament restricting what they allowed Charles to do. By restricting him Charles got angry and resorted to personal rule. Religious grievances weren’t the main cause of the introduction of Personal Rule, however only added to the disagreements between the King and Parliament.
Charles personality was also a major factor in his decision to embark on Personal Rule. Charles was known for being obstinate. He therefore wasn’t very likely to compromise, or even agree anything with Parliament that didn’t directly benefit him. His main characteristic that caused him to introduce Personal Rule was his strong belief in Divine Right. He believed that he was appointed by God and didn’t have to answer to anyone but God. This caused resentment from many MP’s as Charles felt that he deserved everything, and that Parliament shouldn’t be questioning what Charles should have however they should just give it to him. The creation of the Petition of Rights in 1628, show how Parliament was trying to control Charles. The Petition of rights included the fact that it was illegal to introduce taxes without parliament consent and illegal to imprison people without cause showing their cause of imprisonment. Even though Charles initially agreed to accept this, within a year he had decided to embark on Personal Rule, as he felt to constraint and the Petition of Rights was him answering to Parliament. The concept of Personal Rule again further shows that Charles had a strong belief in Divine Right. Without Parliament Charles would have no one to answer to but God, and this was the way he felt appropriate for a King to run a country. Charles belief in divine right was a strong factor as to why he decided to rule without government. It is more of an important factor then the relationship between Charles and Buckingham, however it wasn’t the sole factor as to why he introduced Personal Rule.
The other factor along with his belief of Divine Right was Charles need for Finance. He was fighting a war with Spain and France and needed finance to support himself. However instead of just granting Charles subsidies, Parliament used this time to try and discuss grievances with him. This went against Charles belief of Divine Right, and slowed down Charles process of receiving money. Furthermore this policy of irregular subsidies wasn’t going to make for a stable England in the Long Run, and if Charles was going to continue to fight the war he needed another form of stable income. This lead to him dismissing Parliament and perusing illegal finance methods. Charles ability to finance himself can be seen through his initiative of the Forced Loan which he implemented when he dismissed Parliament in 1626. Instead of receiving the 4 subsidies from Parliament, Charles demanded that his subjects give a gift to the crown. This not only raised more money than the 4 subsidies, but was quicker and a more effective way of raising money. The five Knights case as a result of the Forced Loan also strengthened Charles’s belief in divine rights. 5 Knights were imprisoned and demanded to know why, the response was “special command of the King.” This showed that the King has ultimate power, and cannot be challenged. This also lead to Charles belief that he was able to better finance himself without Parliament which can be seen as a one of the main reasons why he introduced parliament.
Although Charles relationship with Buckingham alienated Charles from Parliament and was the cause of many of the problems between them it wasn’t the main cause of Charles introducing Personal Rule. Charles belief in Divine Right, meant that as long as he was able to finance himself effectively without Parliament, then he could embark on Personal Rule. During 1626 when he dismissed Parliament and was able to finance himself effectively , this showed him he could embark on Personal Rule. Therefore the 2 main important factors of Charles introducing personal rule was his belief in Divine Right and the ability of Stable finance.