He did so in 1642 when the English Civil War started
he ruled without parliament for 11 years from 1629-1640
so that he doesnt have to be critisised and can make descisions freely without not being allowed to or restricted
11 years
to not be criticised
He got money and troops from France.
I think it is because Charles I wanted to rule without parliament for a while and he married a Catholic Princess when most of his country were Protestants.
In a nutshell - Charles I believed in the Divine Right of Kings and wanted to rule as an 'absolute monarch'. Basically this means that he believed Parliament existed to serve him. Because Parliament believed differently, that the King ruled with Parliament and was not above the laws of the land, Charles and Parliament would clash and Charles would end up dismissing Parliament and trying to rule without them. A bit difficult to do, since Parliament held the purse strings. Charles would use what ever means he could find to raise money without having to recall Parliament, means that weren't always legal or ethical. In the end, when he was finally forced to call a Parliament, they turned on him; Charles tried to evict them, they refused to leave, he called an army and the Civil War began. In the end, Charles lost his head, his family went on the run and Cromwell ruled the country as dictator for several years.
with no parliament
Reign of Charles I. 1625-1649, reign of Charles II. 1649-1685. Christoph
to not be criticised
King Charles I
He got money and troops from France.
I think it is because Charles I wanted to rule without parliament for a while and he married a Catholic Princess when most of his country were Protestants.
with parliament control
In a nutshell - Charles I believed in the Divine Right of Kings and wanted to rule as an 'absolute monarch'. Basically this means that he believed Parliament existed to serve him. Because Parliament believed differently, that the King ruled with Parliament and was not above the laws of the land, Charles and Parliament would clash and Charles would end up dismissing Parliament and trying to rule without them. A bit difficult to do, since Parliament held the purse strings. Charles would use what ever means he could find to raise money without having to recall Parliament, means that weren't always legal or ethical. In the end, when he was finally forced to call a Parliament, they turned on him; Charles tried to evict them, they refused to leave, he called an army and the Civil War began. In the end, Charles lost his head, his family went on the run and Cromwell ruled the country as dictator for several years.
with no parliament
King Charles I was a High Church Anglican, while some Parliamentary leaders were Puritans; this was a source of conflict. Charles also attempted to rule without Parliament.
Absolute rulers tended to rule without Parliament.
4 times:- 1625- 1626 after attempts to impeach the Duke of Buckingham over war against Spain and support of the French Huguenots- 1629 for eleven years (beginning Charles' "Personal Rule")- 1640 for three weeks, because Short Parliament refused to grant money to Charles until grievances were redressed.
King Charles I of England threatened to dissolve Parliament and rule without its consent after failing to reach agreements with them on key issues like taxation and religious matters. This act ultimately led to the English Civil War and Charles' eventual trial and execution.