The Significance of Early Disputes between King and Parliament to 1629

Early Reign of Charles I (1625-1628)

Charles I’s belief in the Divine Right of Kings led to tensions with Parliament, as he refused to discuss and share his decision-making power.
Initial disputes arose from religious issues, as Charles I’s decision to marry a French Catholic, Henrietta Maria, provided cause for the fears of Protestant MPs.
Financial disputes were constant - Parliament was reluctant to grant ‘Tunnage and Poundage’ for longer than a year because Charles’s father had used it to raise extra money. Charles I, feeling this was a violation of his prerogative, collected it without Parliament’s consent.
The Petition of Right in 1628 aimed to restrict the King’s power and reaffirm the laws and liberties of subjects, setting the stage for future conflicts.

The Personal Rule (1629-1640)

Charles I dissolved the Parliament in 1629, starting the Eleven Years’ Tyranny. He aimed to rule without Parliament, deepening the sense of betrayal and mistrust.
He continued collecting Tunnage and Poundage without parliamentary approval, infringing the law confirmed by the Petition of Right.
His policies, like the Ship Money tax, were met with resistance. The Hampden case highlighted the controversial nature of these policies.
He further alienated his subjects with his religious reforms. His support for Arminianism was seen as a threat to Protestantism, causing more tension.

Significance of Early Disputes

These early disputes set the stage for the English Civil War. Continued confrontations between Charles I and the Parliament shaped the grounds for military conflict.
Negative perception of Charles I’s rulership led to the failure of his financial policies, weakening his rule and control over England.
The dissolution of Parliament and Charles I’s attempts at absolute monarchy offended the constitutional sensibilities of the time, fuelling support for the cause of Parliament.
The breakdown in trust and communication between king and Parliament meant that when crises arose later, both sides were predisposed to antagonistic perspectives and actions.