[2] After the murder of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, who was deemed to have a negative influence on Charles' foreign policy, Parliament began to criticize the king more harshly than before.
Whig historians such as S. R. Gardiner called this period the "Eleven Years' Tyranny", because they interpret Charles's actions as highly authoritarian and a contributing factor to the instability that eventually led to the English Civil War.
Early parliaments began to emerge under Edward I, who wished to implement taxation changes and wide-ranging law reforms, and sought to gain the consent of the nobility.
Nevertheless, calling a parliament was an expensive and time-consuming process, requiring many personal invitations (for the House of Lords) and elections in the shires and chartered cities and boroughs.
There were practical underpinnings to these powers, for those who elected representatives to Parliament at this time were the same people the monarch had to rely on to collect and remit taxes on a large scale: the landed gentry.
In 1625, James was succeeded by his son Charles I, who immediately plunged England into an expensive and ultimately unsuccessful war with Spain, in an attempt to force the Catholic King Philip IV of Spain to intercede with Emperor Ferdinand II on behalf of Charles's brother-in-law Frederick V, Elector Palatine, to regain the Electorate of the Palatinate and his hereditary lands, which Ferdinand had revoked from him.
There has been considerable historiographical debate about the beginnings of Personal Rule, with some historians favouring a "high road" approach, like Christopher Hill which assesses the long-term causes of Personal Rule such as Stuart financial problems, religious issues (see James VI and I and religious issues and English Reformation) and problems of state development.
Other historians favour a "low road" approach, which blames problems immediately caused by Charles, such as the promotion of anti-Calvinist clergy to positions of authority (like Richard Montagu to the role of one of Charles' personal chaplains[7]), reckless spending on the wars in France and Spain and the corrosive influence of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham on relations between monarch and Parliament.
Throughout his reign Charles was obliged to rely primarily on volunteer forces for defence and on diplomatic efforts to support his sister, Elizabeth, and his foreign policy objective for the restoration of the Palatinate.
[12] To raise revenue without reconvening Parliament, Charles resurrected an all-but-forgotten law called the "Distraint of Knighthood", in abeyance for over a century, which required any man who earned £40 or more from land each year to present himself at the king's coronation to be knighted.
[16] Opposition to ship money steadily grew, but the 12 common law judges of England declared that the tax was within the king's prerogative, though some of them had reservations.
The discontent following a major wave of sales included what was known as the Western Rising, but extended beyond, for instance to riots in Feckenham Forest and Malvern Chase.
One very prominent example of this was the punishment of three dissenters – William Prynne, Henry Burton (theologian) and John Bastwick – in 1637; they were pilloried, whipped and mutilated by cropping and then imprisoned indefinitely for their publication and authorship of anti-episcopal pamphlets.
A greater insistence on the usage of the Book of Common Prayer in all services (which was enforced by episcopal visitation);[27] the placement of the altar at the east end of the Church;[27] and kneeling for the reception of the sacrament[27] were all hallmarks of Laudian liturgy.
This was all encompassed within a policy called 'the beauty of holiness' (this phrase coming from Psalm 96), which described how Christian worship should be couched in ceremony and splendour to further devotion.
Foreshadowing debates that would later emerge over clerical dress, Laud also imposed a rule which decreed all ministers should wear a surplice[28] when performing a service.
[30] Historians generally agree that Laudian reforms were divisive, but disagree over the salience of religious issues in the bringing about of the end of Personal Rule.
[31] Other historians, like David Smith and Ian Gentles argue similarly the primacy of religious issues in the coming of the downfall of Personal Rule, as well as the start of the Civil War in general.
This ended the Personal Rule, but the new body which assembled was unwilling to raise the taxes needed to finance war with Scotland and Charles dissolved it after only a few weeks.
After reaching a settlement with the Scots, the new parliamentary leaders turned their attention to domestic matters and demanded from Charles ever more sweeping concessions over government policy.
In January 1642, Charles left London to raise an army and regain control by force initiating the English Civil War.