Historical Interpretations of Key Issues from this Period

Charles I’s Rule

The ways in which Charles I ruled have led to a range of interpretations. Some historians see his rule as an ‘11-year tyranny’, while others might argue that these tactics were necessary under the circumstances.
Some historians criticise Charles for ruling without Parliament, emphasising his reliance on the royal prerogative and questioning his respect for the rule of law. Others see this period as a time when the monarch was merely trying to uphold his regal rights.
Interpretations surrounding his financial measures like ship money are varied. Some see his sources of income as exploitative and regressive, demonstrating a disregard for his subjects. Others view them as unconventional but necessary financial strategies given the absence of Parliamentary subsidies.

Religion under Charles I

Historians differ on their interpretation of Charles’s religious policies. Some see his affiliation with High Anglicanism as a threat to the Protestant establishment, while others view it as a personal preference rather than a political agenda.
Interpretations about the appointment of William Laud vary, with some historians considering it as evidence of creeping catholicisation, and others asserting that Laud was more interested in church order than Catholic doctrine.
The introduction of the Book of Common Prayer in Scotland has been viewed by some as autocratic overreach and insensitivity towards Scottish sensibilities while it has been considered by others as an attempt at necessary uniformity.

Relationship with Parliament

There is ongoing historical debate over Charles’s relationship with Parliament; did Charles’s lack of collaboration worsen the relationship, setting the stage for the future rebellion? Or was Parliament becoming increasingly demanding and obstinate, making conflict inevitable?
Was Charles’s dissolution of Parliament an act of despotism? Or was it a reasonable response to Parliamentary insubordination? Interpretations differ significantly.
The end of Personal Rule is also a subject of varying interpretations. Some historians view it as a result of Charles’s failed policies leading to the Bishops’ Wars, while others see this as a situation forced upon Charles by external pressures.