James I and the Union of the Crowns (1603–1625)
The Scottish King of England
In 1603, with the death of Elizabeth I, the long-ruling Tudor dynasty ended abruptly. She left no direct heir, the throne passed to James VI of Scotland, who was the great-great-grandson of Henry VII through Margaret Tudor. James thus became James I of England, initiating the Stuart period. His accession was not the result of conquest or upheaval, but a relatively smooth dynastic transition. It created the so called Union of the Crowns, placing both England and Scotland under a single monarch.
This moment is often overlooked in modern discourse, especially by those in Scotland who favour a narrative of English dominance. Yet it was a Scottish king who first ruled over both kingdoms, a union initiated from Edinburgh rather than imposed from London. James entered England with grand hopes of forging a single kingdom, uniting his two realms into a British polity. The English Parliament, however, was wary of such a project, and early tensions would shape the entirety of his reign.
James’s Political Philosophy and the Divine Right of Kings
James arrived with firm views on monarchy and government. He was an advocate of the divine right of kings, the belief that monarchs ruled by God’s will and were accountable only to Him. This was not merely a justification of power but a fully developed political theory. He had expressed these views in works such as The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron.
This philosophy immediately put him at odds with the English political tradition, which held that even the monarch must govern in accordance with the law and with the advice of Parliament. Unlike in Scotland, where royal authority had been more autocratic, the English system had developed through centuries of baronial resistance, parliamentary oversight, and legal precedent.
James’s belief in divine right coloured all aspects of his rule. He resented what he saw as Parliament’s encroachments on royal prerogative, especially its claim to control over taxation, foreign policy, and succession. Though personally affable and intellectually capable, James lacked the political subtlety to navigate England’s more developed institutions.
Tensions with Parliament
James’s first Parliament in 1604 began with high hopes. He expressed a desire for harmony and unity, famously declaring, “I will not be content that my power be disputed upon.” From the outset, however, Parliament resisted his efforts to push through a political union with Scotland.
More significantly, financial tensions soon emerged. James inherited a crown with limited revenue and lavish spending habits. The Tudor model had been one of fiscal prudence, but James quickly spent beyond his means, granting generous pensions and patronage to his Scottish favourites.
Parliament was reluctant to grant funds without concessions. The 1610 “Great Contract”, proposed by Robert Cecil, aimed to resolve the issue. In exchange for a regular income from Parliament, the king would surrender certain feudal rights. Negotiations broke down, however, with both sides distrusting the other’s motives. The result was a lost opportunity to clarify the financial and constitutional relationship between monarch and Parliament.
Parliament also asserted its rights in matters of free speech, ecclesiastical reform, and the treatment of recusants. In response, James dissolved Parliament multiple times, ruling for extended periods without its input. This fostered a growing perception that the monarchy was increasingly arbitrary and out of touch.
Religious Policy and the Gunpowder Plot
Religion dominated much of James’s domestic policy. The Church of England, a product of Elizabethan compromise, housed within it both traditionalists and reform-minded Puritans. James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 to hear Puritan grievances. Though largely dismissive, he did authorise a new translation of the Bible. The result was the 1611 King James Version, a monumental literary and religious achievement.
James enforced conformity to the Church of England but was not inclined to persecution. His aim was unity, not bloodshed. However, his failure to grant broader toleration for Catholics and his continued enforcement of recusancy fines bred resentment.
In 1605, this resentment exploded in the Gunpowder Plot. A group of Catholic conspirators, most famously Guy Fawkes, attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament and kill the king. The plot was foiled, and the response was swift and brutal. New laws penalised recusants further, and national paranoia against Catholics intensified.
Though James did not launch widespread purges, the event solidified Protestant nationalism and heightened distrust between monarch, Parliament, and minority faiths.
Court Culture and the Rise of Favourites
James’s court was marked by extravagance and personal favouritism. He had a well documented preference for male courtiers, most notably Robert Carr and George Villiers, later Duke of Buckingham. These favourites received titles, lands, and political influence far beyond their experience or competence.
Buckingham in particular would become a symbol of royal indulgence and corruption. His dominance in court politics, and his later influence under Charles I, made him a lightning rod for parliamentary grievance. James’s tolerance of such behaviour, coupled with courtly excess and mismanagement, undermined royal credibility.
The king’s failure to manage patronage responsibly deepened resentment in the political nation. It also set dangerous precedents, allowing courtiers to act as gatekeepers to royal favour, further alienating Parliament and the broader elite.
Foreign Policy and the Spanish Match
James’s foreign policy was cautious, sometimes to a fault. He avoided military entanglement, believing war to be the enemy of monarchy. Instead, he pursued peace with Spain and sought a marriage alliance between his son Charles and the Spanish Infanta.
This proposed “Spanish Match” met fierce resistance at home. Anti-Catholic sentiment was deeply entrenched in England, and the idea of a Catholic queen consort offended both Parliament and the public. Parliament passed petitions against the marriage and called for war with Spain.
In 1621, frustrated by James’s refusal to act in support of Protestant forces in the Thirty Years’ War, Parliament issued a protestation declaring its right to debate foreign affairs. James tore the record of the protest from the parliamentary journal and dissolved Parliament.
The Spanish Match ultimately failed, but the episode revealed the extent of distrust between King and Parliament. It also foreshadowed the aggressive foreign and religious policies that would bring his son into direct conflict with the nation.
The Legacy of James I
When James died in 1625, he left behind a kingdom that was politically and financially strained. His dream of British unity remained unrealised. His belief in divine right had created a widening gulf between the monarchy and Parliament. His religious policies satisfied neither Catholics nor Puritans. His court was infamous for corruption and excess.
Yet James also left an institutional inheritance. He had presided over a relatively peaceful reign. He had avoided large-scale religious persecution. His Bible translation helped unify English language and religious thought. His governance, though flawed, had laid the groundwork for constitutional questions that would dominate the next generation.
Most importantly, James’s failure to understand or respect the evolving role of Parliament sowed the seeds of crisis. His son Charles I would inherit not only the crown, but also a political culture steeped in suspicion, conflict, and unresolved questions of sovereignty.
The Stuart experiment had begun in a flurry of optimistic hope, sadly, it would end in the bloodiest conflict on English soil, the execution of a King, and an estimated 200,000 dead with a nation in turmoil for over 20 years.