Bad relations between Charles I and Parliament are extremely evident from 1625 to 1629. Charles dissolved three sessions of parliament in a 4-year period (between 1625 and 1629) and from he then governed by prerogative (without Parliament) for eleven years. Arguably, Charles's high views on divine right, religious differences, and his deep attachment to Buckingham (and his foreign policy) were the most important reasons for the poor relatives. On the other hand, Parliament is also heavily responsible for its obstructionist behavior and the need for change. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Charles' high view of divine right and refusal to back down on the issue was the most important reason for bad relations. Although this was not the only reason for the bad relations, Charles again and again emphasized this belief. Furthermore, this was an initial issue that was the precursor to other harmful disagreements such as the behavior of parliament. Charles considered all "privileges" or rights of parliament to be subject to the sovereign's approval. This was a belief also displayed by his fathers James I and James VI in the Trew Laws of Free Monarchies (1598). However, this was a belief that Charles actually set in motion and which, unlike his father, he did not recognize as extremely threatening to Parliament (as they want to have as much power in their hands as possible). Parliament is a body that is meant to help advise the king, but he considered anyone who disagreed with him to be disloyal (he often even refused discussion). The deputies found the situation, once again, very difficult to manage. This very threatening and absolutist behavior of Charles is a very clear reason why Parliament acted as it did in other parliamentary sessions. For example, Parliament only granted Charles one year's tonnage and pound when normally a king receives it for the entire reign. This example also shows Charles' godly attitude when he clashed with them in 1628, resulting in Charles ignoring Parliament and collecting the tax every year. Charles' high view of divine right was the fundamental reason for the bad relationships as it caused tension and mutual disgust from the beginning. Charles' high view of divine right is an extremely influential factor that caused the harsh position of Parliament. This made parliament's obstructive and ambiguous behavior a very important part in the breakdown of relations, as it led to parliament giving very little money to Charles when he needed it. Parliament was under threat at the time (even thinking it would be abolished), so they attempted to show their king that their help was needed. This is demonstrated in the Parliament of 1625 when they gave Charles subsidies worth £140,000 (an insult) which is well short of the million Charles needed to wage war on Spain. This was a very duplicitous gesture on the part of Parliament as they had pushed hard for war but, when it came, did not pay, which would inevitably cause a rift between Charles and the MPs. This very ambiguous behavior was also seen in Charles' third parliament in March 1628: the parliament agreed to pay Charles the five desired subsidies, but only if Charles accepted the Petition of Rights. This act meant that Charles could not get expenses from forced loans (which was a hugely successful income for Charles because by July 1627 he had brought in £240,000 more than expected) which was a direct link to goingagainst divine right. Parliament's behavior in providing a lack of money would inevitably cause bad relations (a very significant cause), however, this behavior was due to Charles's high view of divine right. Charles's deeply bonded relationship with Buckingham (which greatly influenced Charles' foreign policy) was also significant in causing his poor relations with parliament. Charles had put Buckingham in charge of The Cadiz Expedition of 1626 and a naval expedition to the Ile de Re in 1627 both ended in disaster. This had greatly embarrassed the kingdom as Sir Edwyn Sandys said: "As England was England, she received not so dishonorable a blow"; meant that England was fighting wars with both Spain and France and; very significantly it angered Parliament. To them Buckingham had become the "complaint of all complaints" as they sought to impeach him. This is very significant in the poor relations between Parliament and Charles because Buckingham was a favorite of Charles: Charles reacted by dissolving Parliament. This also underlines the very ambiguous behavior of the parliament because the reason for the disastrous expeditions was the lack of funding from the parliament: the troops were not trained, they were poorly equipped and many were starving. If parliament had granted more funding the expeditions would have gone differently, so placing all the blame on Buckingham was unfair. Charles recognized this fact which further distanced the boundary between him and Parliament. In hindsight, if Charles had not been strongly influenced by Buckingham, perhaps relations would have been better, which is significant. However, probably the most important reason was that if Parliament had given the necessary funding and not placed all the blame on Buckingham, relations would have been much better too. Even if divine right was the most important reason for bad relationships, it would be true to say that religion also had a role to play. This was a time when the question of faith was highly controversial, as seen during the reign of James I (e.g., The Millenary Petition, a debate at Hampton's court). Charles favored the Arminian group (which has very strong links to Catholicism) while Parliament favored Puritan beliefs (the other side of the spectrum from Catholicism). This created tension from the beginning, especially when important Armenian bishops were appointed (for example, William Laud, who had a view of divine right and was an Arminian, was appointed Bishop of London in 1628), parliament felt threatened (the which relates to the threat they felt regarding righteous divine visions). Armenians believed that the ceremonies, statues and bowing to the name of Jesus were vital to the services which made parliament believe that there was a "popish plot" and a return to the Roman Catholic Church. MPs even believed there was a relaxation on Recusuncy fines (fines against Catholics). Not only did the rise of the Armenians and the belief that there was a relaxation of fines for recusal annoyed and threatened the Puritan parliamentarians, but also the fact that Charles's wife, Henrietta Maria, was Catholic. Religious beliefs further blurred the line between Parliament and Charles, as can be seen in Parliament's announcement of the Three Resolutions criticizing “innovation and change in religion”. Religion was certainly a key factor in the breakdown of relations because it contributed to Parliament's obstructive behavior (which meant they gave a lack of money and.