There was also the problem of Charles, the new Prince of Wales (Henry had died in 1612), who was gallivanting around Europe, spending a fortune on fine art and decorations. Household expenses were cut by around 50 percent, but Cranfield’s overall corruption made Parliament’s already terrible relationship with the Crown even worse. But the King balked at giving up privileges like purveyance, and the House of Commons worried about raising taxes yet again, so no deal was ever made.īy 1620, courtier Lionel Cranfield, who became Lord Treasurer, was attempting to put the King’s disastrous finances in order. The proposed contract would give James a guaranteed, taxpayer-funded income of 200,000 pounds a year, and in exchange he would give up some royal rights. In 1610, Secretary of State Robert Cecil proposed “The Great Contract” to Parliament in an attempt to rein in royal spending. James I King seen in Parliament, circa 1605. READ MORE: Why We Pay Taxes Parliament Tries to Rein in Royal Spending “The proceeds from this tax went towards paying James’s debts.” “In 1609, the cash-strapped James I resurrected an all-but-forgotten feudal levy, ‘anciently due by the common law of England,’ which could be exacted for Henry’s knighting when he reached the age of sixteen,” Tinniswood writes. He also took advantage of the popularity of his teenage heir, Henry, the future Prince of Wales. When James didn’t get money he requested from Parliament, the unpopular King placed custom duties and taxes on middle-class merchants without their consent. According to Tinniswood, “by the time it was staged there were widespread grumblings of discontent at the lavish expenditure involved.” The highly problematic Masque of Blackness cost an estimated 8.5 million pounds ($11,750,400) in today’s money. Queen Anne’s beloved court masques (entertainments) were particularly expensive. The country-making its voice heard through the increasingly vocal House of Commons-reacted angrily as James levied new taxes to fund new peerages for his Scottish favorites, servants for his large family, a new luxurious wardrobe, and endless banquets. ‘Think what the country feels,’ wrote secretary of state Robert Cecil.” “By mid-September 1603,” writes Tinniswood, “when the king and queen were on progress through Wiltshire, Berkshire, and Oxfordshire, spending on the household looked as though it was reaching a rate of £100,000 a year, twice the amount that Elizabeth had spent. The Crown was also allowed to buy all food and goods at reduced prices under the much- hated system of purveyance.īut it was not enough. There were numerous taxes levied on British subjects-from custom duties on all movable goods to taxes on landowners, merchants, and tenant farmers. There was “ ordinary revenue” from the crown lands, court fees and monopolies. The Crown obtained money from a variety of revenue streams. Trueman notes in James I and Royal Revenue, the King excused his spending by saying he was “like a poor man wandering about forty years in a wilderness and barren soil, and now arrived at the land of promise.” James and his wife, Anne of Denmark, immediately began spending like they had just won the lottery. READ MORE: The Wildly Different Childhoods of Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots King James I Levies Multiple TaxesĪ portrait of James VI and I, King of Scotland, England and Ireland (1566-1625). The first ruler of the Stuart dynasty, James was overwhelmed with the riches he encountered in England and started spending like the absolute monarch he was.Īs historian Adrian Tinniswood writes in Behind the Throne: A Domestic History of the British Royal Household: “Household economy-economy of any kind, in fact-was not James I’s strong point.” He ruled over the warring, cash-poor nation of Scotland from the age of one and inherited the throne of England in March 1603 when the childless Elizabeth I died. Son of Mary, Queen of Scots, James had essentially been orphaned as a baby, when his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley was murdered and his mother imprisoned. James I of Scotland and England was the definition of the poor little rich prince. During the rein of the Stuarts in the 17 th century, that role was challenged to an extreme as a series of spendthrift monarchs treated their subjects like a bank that was always open to fund their lavish lifestyles. For centuries, people have questioned the taxpayer’s role in funding the British royal family.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |