Disruptions in Monarch-Parliament Relations, 1621-1625

When James I died in 1625, the relationship between monarch and parliament was arguably still a sufficient and workable one. However, from the years 1621 to 1625, the two sides faced many difficulties; primarily issues revolving religion, finance, and foreign policy. The three issues majorly interlinked when the country was faced with decisions regarding the 30 Years War. Although James’ policies were of great significance in causing difficulties between him and parliament, there are other factors, out of James’ control, that proved to be pivotal in disrupting the relationship of the two sides; such as the underlying religious disagreements facing Europe at the time.

The disagreements between monarch and parliament was greatly triggered in 1921 when James implied that MPs could discuss foreign policy. Discussions regarding the ‘Spanish match’ (the marriage between Charles and the Spanish princess, Maria Anna) had been going on since 1614 and was bound to cause controversy in Parliament as Spain was a heavily catholic and anti-protestant country - completely juxtaposing Anglican

ideology and beliefs at the time. The Commons went as far as producing a petition criticising the Spanish match and even a protestation on December 18, arguing that Parliament had ‘undoubted birthright’ to discuss foreign policy. This angered James as he believed that it was a part of his prerogative and disagreeing with this ‘undermined’ his authority. This, inevitably, resulted to another dissolved parliament (December 1921) - emphasising the great significance this factor had in causing difficulties between James and Parliament.

However, when Charles and Buckingham travelled to Madrid in 1923 in the means of completing the Spanish match, they received such ‘poor treatment’ from the greatly anti-Protestant country that they converted to favouring war against Spain - signing an agreement for Charles to marry the French princess, Henrietta Maria, instead. This positioned England against Spain as France was Spain’s greatest rival at the time. Although this agreed with the majority of Parliament, James argued that this was ‘politically damaging in the long term’, highlighting his strong belief in standing as a ‘Rex Pacificus’ who wanted to maintain good relations with Spain after securing so in 1604. His belief was greatly unpopular and made Charles better received in Parliament, as well as heightening parliament opposition to his rule and policies regarding issues with Spain.

James’ similar stance during the Palatinate Crisis resulted to even more strain on his relationship with Parliament. As the European conflict revolved around the Catholic and Protestant faiths, James would have been expected to intervene. Not only this, Prince Frederick (the newly crowned King of Bohemia) was married to his daughter, Elizabeth, denoting that he should intervene due to dynastic reasons. James retained his belief of negotiating for peace rather than involving England in the said war despite the great pressure from Parliament. This was, once again, unpopular within Parliament and caused further difficulties. However, this policy was not one of his policies towards Spain, implying that other factors also contributed to the dispute between him and Parliament.

Furthermore, there is evidence that James attempted to resolve the difficulties between him and parliament. In 1924, he abided to the prominent MP view of going to war against Spain. However, this more aggressive anti-Spanish stance still caused difficulty with Parliament as they refused to provide the necessary funds - highlighting the underlying issue James and Parliament had regarding finance. Giving Parliament the option to pursue an Anglo-Spanish war implies that James was willing to comply with the majority opinion to minimise difficulties - although, it can also be interpreted as the monarch’s way of manipulating Parliament into agreeing with his policies as the implications of war highlighted the state’s incapability of supporting a war against Spain.
In addition, due to his illness, it can also be inferred that the pursuing of the Anglo-Spanish war was primarily the works of Charles and Buckingham and not James himself.

The fact that the Spanish match was replaced with the union of Charles and Henrietta Maria, also implies that James aimed to understand Parliament and the outstanding and conflicting religious views at the time.

One of the key roots of dispute between the two countries (as well as Europe as a whole) is the differentiating religious views. Spain was a Catholic, anti-Protestant country while England was a Protestant country with widespread anti-Catholic views. It is plausible that the opposing religious views with Spain is what fuelled Parliament into wanting to pursue the Anglo-Spanish war; going against James’ view of peace negotiations. With this evidence in mind, we can interpret that it is religious differences between Spain and England that sparked difficulties between James and Parliament and not just his policies entirely as he did try to sympathise and understand their view

points.

To conclude, James’ policies were a great source of difficulty and tension between him and parliament as the two sides had diverging views regarding issues such as the war against Spain and the Spanish match - the various complications with Spain highlighted their opposing views on finance and religion. In addition, it also sparked dispute regarding the extent of James’ prerogative (disagreements regarding foreign policy). However, James’ similar ‘peaceful king’ stance during the Palatinate Crisis also caused difficulties. Both cases highlight the complicated interrelation of foreign policy, finance, and religion (despite James’ aim of creating policies which would please parliament). Both also suggests that it is religious differences, out of James’ control, which are the root cause of disagreements. Therefore, it can be implied that James’ policies are only a resulting and contributing factor to his difficulties with parliament - not its root cause.