What Was Elizabeth's Legacy To James

Elizabeth’s financial legacy to James was very poor as she had been involved in a multitude of wars, suffered from extreme inflation towards the end of her reign which was compounded by her struggles with monopolies. This in turn partially led to James’ tenuous relationship with parliament over royal expenditure, parliamentary insecurity, corruption and scandal, and his own dealings with finances. Whereas source 12 suggests that Elizabeth’s financial difficulties was indeed the true reason for James’ parliamentary problems, Sources 13 and 14 dispute this fact stating that the king’s personal extravagance and the parliaments own fear of being disposable had a more relevant effect on the relationship between James and Parliament. This essay will
As is suggested in Source 12, ‘[Elizabeth] had to turn to parliament for assistance’ during much of her reign to fund wars which gave Parliament quite significant control over her policies. This realisation for parliament marked the beginning of an era of difficulties for monarchs and their parliaments. It can further be derived from Source 12 that ‘[parliament] used her need of [funds] to make their views known’. Parliament’s consistent use of this throughout James’ reign in questioning his authority (and therefore sparking a debate over divine right and parliamentary privilege) and policies was an attempt by Parliament to make themselves a necessary commodity. This is corroborated by Source 13, ‘If accept that kings have the power of imposing new and higher duties and the right to do this is confirmed, I do not see and likelihood of future parliaments.’ Parliament’s use of subsidies to control the monarch is further confirmed in Source 12, ‘they forced the queen to concede the substance of their demands’. However, far from making themselves indispensable (as is shown to be their intention in Source 13, ‘Where prince’s prerogatives grow, the liberties of subjects diminish’) Parliament primarily succeeded in driving a greater wedge between themselves and James. James
James Whitelocke’s position as an MP makes him inherently biased in this debate however, this source can be taken at face value in as far as it gives a good idea of the views of Parliament at the time. The nature of this source (a speech) could lead to the insinuation that the facts are exaggerated to whip up parliamentary furore. ‘I do not see any likelihood of future parliaments’ is a very inflammatory statement likely to appeal to all