Wendy Kofi Adu
“Charles I’s demand for the Forced Loan of 1626 was purely a political measure”
Explain why you disagree or agree with this view.

Charles I’s demand, in 1626, for the Forced Loan, was not a political measure, but undoubtedly a financial one that happened to have political advantages.
King Charles, after only one year of reign, was threatened by an impending war with Spain and France, and this was the reason why he was in a desperate need of money.
Following the disastrous and embarrassing expeditions to Cadiz, where the poorly equipped English soldiers got drunk and began fighting with each other, and later on at La Rochelle, personally led by Buckingham, where besides the lack of reinforcements and provision from the motherland, …show more content…
Five of the imprisoned knights challenged the king’s will by applying the writs of “habeas corpus”, questioning the legality of their incarceration. Unfortunately, for them, the court sided Charles, motivating him to continue further with the Forced Loan.

In conclusion, Charles mandatory request or the Forced Loan commenced primary as a financial manoeuvre, demanded to ensure enough funds to be able to participate the war. Although is undeniable that this manoeuvre had strong political messages, directed majorly to the parliament. Charles proved to the parliament, his reign, and most importantly to himself that he had enough power to collect substantial taxes or subsidies without their approval.
The five knights’ case is an ulterior demonstration and statement of Charles’ absolute power to himself. The court refusal to order the release of the unjust imprisonment of the seventy-six gentlemen and knights for not paying the Forced Loan is nothing but good news because it meant he could carry on with the loans.
Consequently, Charles ruled the reign for eleven years without calling the parliament, using different ways to raise money without their