Did James I’s Personality Create the Problems He Had With Parliament?

During the reign of James I, there were a number of issues that caused tensions with Parliament. Whilst some of these issues could be seen as unavoidable, others were undoubtedly the result of James I’s personality and characteristics.


James had already been King of Scotland for some time when he came to the English Throne in 1603. Compared to Scotland, England was a wealthy country, although not as wealthy as James liked to think. He would often give away money he did not have or buy things he could not afford. This financial extravagance did not sit well with Parliament, who were not fond of taxation. Whilst it could be argued that the country would have struggled financially even without James’s extravagance, it provided MPs something to blame, and undoubtedly caused friction at court for James. In this environment, it is impossible to deny that James’s personality bought such troubles on himself.


One issue that was completely out of the control of James was his nationality. The fact that the King of England was not in fact English caused a great deal of tension in Parliament. The two countries were old enemies, and James was unfamiliar with many of the English customs. He would often appoint Scots to positions of political power in England, of whom the English were very suspicious. His desire to merge England and Scotland into Great Britain was overshadowed by bigotry and prejudice at court. The issue of his nationality had nothing to do with James’s personality, and the tensions it caused in Parliament were undoubtedly the fault of the commons.


Another area where James frequently disagreed with Parliament was the subject of religion. James was committed to Protestantism, which sat well with the Commons, but Puritans would frequently push him to change policies and canons. At the beginning of his reign, James held a conference with a number of church officials, and though a few compromises were made with the Puritans, the church that Elizabeth had established was largely maintained in an unchanged state, excluding a few other small changes. I believe that whatever James did with the church, there would undoubtedly have been tensions. Everyone had a different view on religion at the time, and all thought that the opinions of all others were wrong. Once again, the problems were not caused by James’s personality.


In conclusion, I believe that whilst James may have been responsible for some of the issues he experienced whilst on the English throne, for the most part they were the result of the Members of Parliament. It was their prejudice and bigotry against the Scottish that caused a number of the problems James experienced, and the religious beliefs of some that were responsible for tensions surrounding the Church. Whilst it must be admitted that James’s personality and characteristics did not help his cause, ultimately the responsibility lies with the MPs.

Do you agree that the last fifteen years of Elizabeth's reign were more of a crisis than an exultant end?

The two sources both offer very different viewpoints on the reaction to Elizabeth's death in 1603. The first, written at the time by Thomas Dekker, describes a country riddled with grief over the death of their beloved monarch. The second, written much more recently in 1988 by C Haigh, depicts the exact opposite. Haigh claims that if anything, the country was relieved to be rid of the tyrant their queen had become. The latter is the view that seems to have the most credibility and evidence to support it. Whilst it is true that Elizabeth did have some successes, such as her tolerant religious settlement; the majority of her actions either caused her problems at court, or made her unpopular with the general populous. These included the factions she encouraged by choosing favourites, and her financial / foreign policy situations. Addressing the question, I believe that the last fifteen years of Elizabeth's reign were indeed more of a crisis than an exultant end. It seems to me that the consensus among many historians is that the defeat of the Spanish Armada is the highest point in Elizabeth's reign. She never again had that level of success and that much adoration from her people, and many sources other than the ones supplied show her to have become an irritable and spiteful old woman in her final years.

When considering the provided sources, it is important to maintain awareness of the provenance of the two sources. Dekker's piece was written at the time of Elizabeth's death, and so he would be far more able to gage the feelings of the population at the time. However, it is possible that he was under pressure to write about the Queen in a certain manner, for a number of reasons. C. Haigh, on the other hand, wrote his piece nearly 400 years after the event in question. Whilst this may allow him to evaluate the situation from a more objective stand point, it also means that he is out of touch with what was felt by people at the time. Both sources have their merits, but I believe that Dekker's piece is possibly more reliable in capturing the feelings of the population at the time.

Without doubt, the first few years of Elizabeth's reign were her most successful. This is exemplified by her religious settlement. This was a tolerant approach, which only saw extremists punished. Although the country was Protestant, she allowed Catholics to continue to practice, so long as they did so in private and attended Church of England services (which acted as a means of propaganda). She even went as far as punishing extremist Protestants, known as Puritans. However, even up until her final years, religion still caused division in court. C. Haigh gives detail of this, as he describes how Elizabeth ended her reign amidst "factionalism at home". This evidence clearly points towards Elizabeth ending her days more so in crisis than with exultance, but even so it is impossible to ignore the success of this policy. Whilst it undoubtedly caused tensions (as every reform does when it is first introduced), the best evidence for its success and the peace it brought is the fact that it is still in place, virtually unchanged, today.

Religion was not the only thing which caused division and tensions at court. There were a number of factions in the government at the end of Elizabeth's reign, something that Elizabeth practically encouraged by having several "favourites". Rumours of Elizabeth's involvement with men such as Robert Dudley and Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex caused scandal in court. Additionally, whilst there were those who gained Elizabeth's favour because of their reliability and loyalty, the fact that she also appeared to promote men like Walter Raleigh because they were "dashing and flamboyant" proved to cause several issues for her, most notably with the Earl of Essex. Elizabeth's favourite from 1587, he caused scandal as he disobeyed her orders even led a rebellion against her. Once again, this points far more to Elizabeth's reign ending in crisis.

Finance was a major issue for Elizabeth. This is a perfect issue to demonstrate the earlier statement that Elizabeth had most of her successes in the former part of her reign, and that most of the latter fifteen years were filled with trouble. When Elizabeth came to the throne, the crown was two hundred and seventy seven thousand pounds in debt, a huge amount for the time. However, Elizabeth was by nature a careful spender, and was able to completely wipe this debt by 1574. During this time, the realm enjoyed times of relative prosperity, despite some of her financial policies being less than popular. However, as England entered war with Spain, and the cost of her foreign policy began to rise, the debt crept back up. Towards the end of her reign, there were numerous complaints from almost all sides about her policy of selling monopolies - total control to a given market - but she refused to give in. C. Haigh states that by the end of her reign, Elizabeth was left presiding over "poverty (...) at home". Yet again, this evidence supports the view that Elizabeth ended her days in crisis.

As hinted at in the above passage, foreign policy was the cause of some of Elizabeth's biggest problems, but was also the source of some of her greatest successes. As discussed above, the Spanish Armada of 1588 proved to be one of Elizabeth's greatest successes. This one, decisive victory is what gained Elizabeth the support of her people more than any other single event in her reign. Yet it also marked the end of Elizabeth's time of glory. From this moment onward, the last fifteen years of Elizabeth's reign gradually slipped into what could only be described as crisis. As the war with Spain continued and trouble began to emerge from Ireland, it was all Elizabeth could do to keep in control of both her finances and the court. It could also be argued that many of Elizabeth's other problems were caused by difficulties with foreign policy. For example, it could be argued that the Earl of Essex's rebellion against Elizabeth could have been avoided if it weren't for the conflict in Ireland he was sent to settle earlier. Foreign Policy is one of the only areas that I believe could be seen to support both sides of this argument. Whilst it did cause crisis within court, with C. Haigh claiming she "ended her (...) presiding over war and failure abroad", it is still possible that the memory of past victories, especially the defeat of the Spanish Armada. This sort of total victory is the sort that would stay in the minds of the population long after it dropped out of relevance. This could be what was responsible for the feelings of loss Dekker describes as he writes that the death of Elizabeth "took away the hearts from millions".

Regardless of individual opinions, it is almost impossible to deny that Elizabeth's death would have shocked the nation "like a thunderclap", as Dekker writes. Elizabeth had ruled for so long that "almost all were born under her" - most people did not know anything else. This combined with Elizabeth's strong propaganda and image of everlasting youth would have caused a great deal of shock at the time of her death, and many would have been fearful of the uncertainty of the country’s future. Considering all the arguments, it is very difficult to say that Elizabeth did not end her reign in crisis, but at the same time it seems clear that many of her people still loved her and saw her as a constant point, a static element throughout very difficult and turbulent lives. The two possible outcomes of the proposed question are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It seems that Elizabeth did certainly have many problems at court, some of which were "partly her own fault", as C. Haigh writes, but she was still able to appear as the "ever-young and ever beautiful virgin mother of her people". I believe that the last fifteen years of Elizabeth's reign were to some degree a crisis, but to her people it was an exultant end. Ultimately, however, taking the evidence from an objective perspective, it cannot be denied that there is far more support for Elizabeth ending her time in what is closer to crisis than anything else.

Finance caused significant problems for Elizabeth II

Although Elizabeth did have some issues with finance, I do not believe that any of the problems caused were that significant. She was able to completely clear her inherited deficit by 1574, and by 1600 she was only £48,000 in debt. She ended the Tudor tradition of only asking for parliamentary taxation for cases of emergency. Although the ministers were not always very pleased to have to give her such subsidies, they never refused her, as the money was vital for national defence. Without doubt, her largest expenses were war. She spent huge amounts on her foreign affairs and if anything did, this is what caused her problems.

In 1600, Elizabeth’s finances did not add up. The huge cost of her operations in Ireland meant that she was roughly £48,000 in debt. This demonstrates that regardless of other arguments pertaining to this subject, Elizabeth’s finances must have caused some issues or tensions for her. It would be impossible for anyone to run up a large debt and still keep spending as if they were entirely solvent. Elizabeth must have had to let her finances influence her decisions, which would have certainly caused at least some problems for her.

While Elizabeth did run up debt towards the end of her reign, the fact is that £48,000 isn’t really that much. When she inherited the throne, she also inherited a £277,000 debt. She worked hard to raise finances and was able to clear the deficit by 1574, nearly doubling her income in the process. This shows the Elizabeth clearly knew her way around her finances to be able to increase her income by such a significant amount. The fact that debts began to creep up again towards the end of her reign is only to be expected, considering how much she was spending at the time.

Although she was able to double her regular income, her spending was so great that she frequently had to ask for parliamentary taxation. Traditionally, parliamentary taxations were given only when the monarch needed money to help finance a campaign in Europe or other large, one-off expense. Elizabeth, however, ended this tradition. Her spending was so great that she very frequently had to ask for subsidies under the pretext of national defence. This shows that it was a struggle for her to avoid larger debts, and subsidies from the parliament were some of the only things keeping her from running up huge debts. This would have certainly caused tensions between her and her ministers, who would frequently complain that she was taxing the country too hard.

Although the complaints of her ministers would certainly have been annoying, I do not believe that they would have caused any significant problems. Despite their complaints, the ministers never refused Elizabeth a subsidy. So, in my opinion, this is evidence of Elizabeth avoiding problems, rather than them being caused by the taxations. Ultimately, there were no significant issues caused by Elizabeth asking for these subsidies, and they were an effective way to prevent other problems from arising.

By far, her largest expenses were for war. Elizabeth spent huge amounts of money on an assortment of expensive foreign affairs policies. In 1600, Elizabeth’s expenditure for war and foreign affairs (Treasurer of the Navy, Master of the Armoury, Lieutenant of the Artillery, Low Countries, Ireland) was over five times more than all of the other expenses combined. Having to pay so much for all of these wars and other aspects of foreign affairs must have influenced her decision making. It is hard to imagine that the financial cost of some of her decisions did not affect her actions. After all, Elizabeth was often a frugal spender and always liked to keep on top of her finances.

Although it is true that finance must have influenced almost all of Elizabeth’s decisions, pertaining to foreign affairs or not, I do not believe that she would have let it influence her to a significant degree. She may have altered the minor details of a particular operation in order to cut costs, she would not have made any significant changes or abandoned a particular plan because of a lack of finance. As such, I do not believe that even the massive expense of her foreign affairs efforts caused any significant financial problems for her.

If anything points to Elizabeth having problems with strained financial resources, it was her selling of crown lands. This was the practice of selling land that she owned to generate extra income. It saw the last of the monasteries seized under Henry VIII pass into private ownership. This is clear evidence that Elizabeth had problems with finance. Land would have been one of her best assets, and to sell it off seems almost like desperation. However, it did bring in a large amount of additional income.

Elizabeth had several more unpopular method of raising funds. One example of this would be ship money. This was a tax on ship owners, except it was assumed that everyone living in a coastal town owned a ship. Obviously, this was not the case, and so the tax was very unpopular. Possibly more unpopular, with both the ministers and the common populace, was the policies of selling monopolies. The act of “selling monopolies” was when Elizabeth would sell the rights to an entire market (be it playing cards or dice, or even more vital resources like vinegar, salt and starch) to one individual of company. The company who had bought the monopoly would then have complete control of that market, with no competition. They could charge whatever they wanted, and no one would be able to do anything about it. One MP said in 1601 that monopolies “bringeth the general profit into a private hand, and the end of all is beggary and bondage to the subject”. It is clear that the selling of monopolies caused some problems for Elizabeth, whilst solving others. However, the policy would have perhaps worked without flaw if the owners of the monopolies had used their rights less greedily.

In conclusion, whilst I acknowledge that finance did perhaps cause some issues for Elizabeth, none of these were “significant”. The issue of debt in 1600 is a major one in my opinion, when you consider everything else that money was being spent on. Likewise, the fact that she had to repeatedly ask for parliamentary taxation isn’t evidence of problems she was facing, but rather how she solved issues surrounding foreign affairs. Elizabeth is known to have been a careful spender, and she would have considered the financial aspects of most of her decisions. However, I do not think that she was ever in a situation where she was unable to do what she believed was best for lack of funds. Finally, the monopolies were perhaps one of the larger problems that Elizabeth faced. However, a speech at parliament was sufficient to calm down the ministers, and the monopolies remained in place into James I’s reign. None of these issues, in my own opinion, were significant. Admittedly, some of them were larger than others, but Elizabeth was able to solve most of the problems before they became large enough to be classed as significant.

How far did the mistakes of Harold Godwinson explain the success of William of Normandy in 1066?

Without doubt, Harold Godwinson made many serious mistakes which contributed to the success of William of Normandy in 1066. However, it is important to also note the other factors that would have contributed to William's success. These included military aspects like the superior Norman troops and the fact that William of Normandy was a superior general; and also aspects like luck and "the will of god" on the Norman's side. Harold Godwinson's mistakes included his failure to make firm and quick decisions on the battle field; his demobilizing the troop’s just weeks before William arrived; and his poor strategy, regarding his decision to march straight from Stamford Bridge to Hastings without pausing to rest his troops or find reinforcements. Of all of these, I believe that the latter was the most significant.

When Harald Hardrada arrived to attempt to take England, Harold Godwinson immediately rushed up the length of the country to York at a blistering pace. There, he fought two successful battles at Stamford Bridge and Gate Fulford, taking Harald Hardrada and Tostig by surprise. He was only able to rest for a few short days before he heard news or William of Normandy's arrival in England and tried to repeat his success. He travelled down to Hastings at a forced march, but was unable to surprise William, who was able to defeat his exhausted troops. This was a big mistake for Harold. By marching to London and delaying there, he could have successfully rested his troops, as well as drawn up reinforcements which would have given him a far higher chance of success.

It could be argued, however, that if it weren't down to Harald Hardrada, the issue mentioned above would not have been a problem. Harold Godwinson had no way of knowing that he would be subject to two invasions within a few weeks of each other, and so could not have known that he would need to modify his strategy accordingly. There is a strong argument that if the time between the two invasions was greater, then Harold would not have experienced the problems he did. His troops would not have been exhausted or depleted, and would be able to give the Norman's a far better fight.

Another mistake on Harold Godwinson's part was his very poor decision to demobilize the bulk of his troops - the fleet and the fyrd. These were largely peasants, armed with whatever they could find, called away from their normal lives to help defend the realm. Harold sat on the Southern Coast for months waiting for William to arrive with thousands of these men. Then, a matter of weeks before Williams invasion, he made the decision to release them. Although with hindsight, this was a very bad move for Harold Godwinson, it is important to note that at the time, this probably seemed a perfectly good decision. The Fyrd were mostly farmers, and harvest was coming. If they didn't bring in the Harvest, the realm would starve. Additionally, it was so late in the campaigning season by that time that it was extremely unlikely that William of Normandy would try to invade.

One of the vital aspects to consider is the state of the troops on each side. On the Saxon end of the scale, the army is made up entirely of foot soldiers. The majority of them are untrained peasants, who are armed and armoured in whatever they can find. The Saxon elite were the Housecarls. These were the backbone of the army, the King's personal bodyguard. They were highly trained foot soldiers, with good arms and armour. The Norman army, on the other hand, was almost entirely mounted. The strength of the army came from the knights, heavily armoured cavalry on huge warhorses. As well as the knights and other soldiers, the Normans made good use of archers. Where in England, bows and arrows were used almost exclusively for hunting, the Normans had realised the military potential of archers. All of the Norman army were highly trained and disciplined, and it is this that allowed them to execute complex strategies with such dexterity, and it is this that made a significant difference to the outcome of the battle.

This highlights another of Harold Godwinson's mistakes: his failure to control his army. By giving quick and decisive orders, he could have easily prevented catastrophe at several points during the battle. For example, William ordered his troops to pretend to rout to lure the English forward, before turning on them and massacring them. Just by telling his subordinates to try to prevent such chases could have saved many lives, and possibly changed the course of the battle. At another point in the battle, when William of Normandy's troops really were retreating, ordering his troops to press in a structured manner could once again have changed the course of the battle. However, reports say that Harold was indecisive, and could not make up his mind whether or not to press the attack in time. Ultimately, this comes down to a combination of Harold Godwinson's mistakes, and the fact that William of Normandy was undoubtedly the better general.

Although not something really related to either Harold Godwinson or William of Normandy, or even the resources at their demand, one of the most important things to consider would be "Acts of God", or even luck. William of Normandy's campaign was executed under a papal banner. According to the Catholic Church, god was on the side of the Normans. This would have given the Normans a slight boost in morale. However, events that occurred purely by luck or chance were the ones that changed the course of history. The most obvious example of this would be Harold's death. According to record, he died when he was hit in the eye by a stray Norman arrow. The chances of this happening are remarkably slim, and if this had not happened, there is a good chance that the Battle could have continued until both sides stopped in the evening, by which time much needed English reinforcements might have arrived. Without doubt, Luck, or so called "Acts of God" played a key part in William's success.

To conclude, it is clear that there were a huge variety of aspects, all of which were necessary for William of Normandy to achieve the victory he did. Even so, it is impossible to ignore the fact that had Harold Godwinson made different decisions, the outcome of the events of 1066 might have been very different. These factors, whilst not the only key one, were possibly one of the more significant, if not the most significant factor in determining the outcome of William of Normandy's invasion of England, in 1066.

How far was pre-conquest England a prosperous and well-governed kingdom?

I believe that pre-conquest England was a rather well governed and somewhat prosperous kingdom. The countries system of writs; the division of land and the hierarchy as well as the coinage, trade, towns and frequent invasions all suggest that pre-conquest England was prosperous and well-governed. However, the possible threat to the king of the Earls, the Danegeld and the countries comparatively undeveloped economy all suggest as less prosperous, more unstable England.

The land was divided into several parts. Primarily, the realm was divided into four earldoms (Mercia, Wessex, East Anglia and Northumbria) each of which was controlled by an Earl. These Earls were incredibly powerful. Each earldom was further divided into shires (like modern-day counties) hundreds and hides. Each level of this hierarchy had its own leader / representative, such as the sheriffs managing each shire under the Earls. This system demonstrates that there was a very clear hierarchy in pre-conquest England; which would have made the country far easier to manage and well governed because each division of land would have a local lord to manage it.

However, one issue of this system that could cause instability in the country was the power of the Earls. The Earls combined power easily eclipsed that of the Kings, meaning that if they worked together against him they could overthrow him with no trouble what so ever. This suggests that there were fractures in the system that, if put under pressure, could break to bring the whole thing down.

England’s system of “writs” – written orders with the authority of the King – was unrivalled in the rest of Europe. These orders were written by the chancery on behalf of the king before being pressed with the King’s Seal. The King’s Seal is what gave these writs their authority. This suggests that pre-conquest England was well governed because the King could easily send out exact orders to many different people very effectively, letting him be consistent across the realm.

England had a system of coinage the likes of which were contested only by the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim world. The system they implemented stayed in place right up until the 1970’s. The kings opened mints across the land, and every 5-9 years they would call in all the money in the land and remint it with new casts sent up from London. The King and local authorities would then take a percentage of this money in the form of tax. For this system to have worked (and it did, according to coin hoards found later) the government must have been very well governed and organised. Additionally, this coinage system suggests that the country was quite prosperous as well. If there was little trade or other economy, there would be no need for such a complex system as this. Additionally, the very presence of this system would have helped the economy become more developed and advanced.

Having said that, the economy itself was not all very developed at all, compared to the state of the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim world. These countries had advanced system of coinage surpassing that of England, and had cities full of hundreds of thousands of people that were centres for trade for miles around. These economies were massive in comparison to England. Because of this knowledge, it is safe to assume that England was not quite a prosperous as other evidence could have us believe.

In spite of the above, it is important to note that the English did still trade. Finds at archealogical digs such as Sutton Hoo show us that the Anglo-Saxons made jewelry out of materials such as gold, walrus ivory and precious gems. This demonstrates that England was a prosperous country because many of these items would have had to have been imported from overseas. The fact that they are present (and in such high quantities) suggests that the English could afford to buy such lavish goods, and were keen traders.

Pre-conquest England was frequently invaded by the danes. Each time they did so, the government of collect a tax called the “danegeld” to pay off the Danish, so they went away. This suggests a number of things. First and foremost, people don’t invade poor countries. England must have been seen as a very valuable prize for it to be invaded so frequently, suggesting that the country was very rich and prosperous. In reaction to each invasion, the government would try to appease the Danes by collecting a tax and using it to pay them to go away. This suggests two things. Firstly, we could afford to pay these huge amounts of money. Other, poorer countries may have been bankrupt by such amounts, but England was able to regularly pay and still remain stable. However, it is impossible that this did not have a knock-on effect on the economy. It would suggest that perhaps England was not as prosperous as it could have been because of these taxations.

Finally, the distribution of the population shows that the English were farmers more than traders. 90% of the population lived in the country, with only a small amount in towns. This shows that the economy was not very developed and that the majority of people relied on self-sufficiency rather than any other way of living. Compared to the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim world, where a far higher percentage of people lived in towns and cities, England was relatively undeveloped.

In my opinion, there is no question that pre-conquest England was rather well governed. The clear cut hierarchy and division of land as well as the advanced systems of writs and coinage all suggest that the pre-conquest government knew what it was doing, and did it well. Although the power of the Earls could under certain circumstances lead to instability in the country, I do not think that this is too much of an issue when taken into perspective with their other achievements. However, the issue of “prosperous” is not as clear cut. Although several points very clearly show that it either is or isn’t a prosperous country, such as the coinage system and the distribution of the population throughout the country. Other points, such as the frequent invasion by the Danes could suggest either way, depending on interpretation. Overall, I would say that if compared only to its European neighbours then pre-conquest England was certainly prosperous for its time. However, when looking at the bigger picture and including the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim world, England was not really very developed at all. In conclusion, I believe that pre-conquest England was rather well governed, and somewhat prosperous.