The History Learning Site, 17 Mar James I has always been viewed as an extravagant king who gave no thought to finance — if James wanted something, he had it regardless of cost. When James moved south from Holyrood to London inhe was greatly impressed by the lavish entertainment put on for his benefit by various noble families. James concluded that he could expect even better after he was crowned as a king, as by rights, he would be able to live a far grander lifestyle than noble families.
The sale of this land also cut off a large source of revenue for the monarch as he was no longer able to claim rents. Many would argue that the blame for the financial issues that James faced were primarily on the shoulders of Elizabeth and the failures of Parliament in trying to find new sources of income.
James entered his reign fairly debt free. However, his extraordinary generosity when concerning his favourites left him in a much trickier situation than that of what he began with. James particularly favoured his Scottish friends.
Inparliament granted James three subsidies so that he could settle his debt. James appeared unable to grasp the concept of the value of money and significantly overestimated the wealth of the crown.
Instead of doing everything in his power to find new sources of income James only worsened the situation with his unnecessary, excessive gift giving and generosity towards his favourites. This lack of responsibility ultimately proves that James clearly no handle on the issues that he faced. He was out of his depth and faced the matters at hand with an immature and juvenile attitude.
James had a strong love for hunting and unnecessary dining and drinking which shed a bad light on his moral obligations as a heavy debt hung on his shoulder and economic crisis was not far away for England.
James also had financial responsibilities towards his family. Elizabeth never had such obligations and would never have allowed the additional expenses that James put into court entertainment.
James believed that his family had the right to live in similar magnificence to that of his own; whereas royal finances under Elizabeth had always orientated around one person as the queen never married. The Great Contract was put forward in by the Earl of Salisbury as an attempt at fundamental reform.
The aim of the contract was to allow James to pay off all of the royal debt. James approached the situation in a discourteous manner, complaining to parliament that the decision making process was taking too long.
This only served to anger many MPs and led to a decline in support for the contract. An example of this would be the patronage system that meant that James would have had to reward those who served him. This meant that a simple gift to a one of his favourites was no different to rewarding someone for the work that they had done for him.
It was a flawed system which provided no favours for the King when trying to tackle the financial issues that he faced.
Also, the failures of Cranfield when attempting to reduce the royal household expenses were a factor in the financial issues of Britain. Although he did reduce household expenses by 50 per cent, Cranfield represented an unjust system.
Many historians would say that he embodied the idea of an unjust and corrupt system that first needed to be fixed before any real reform could be made. To conclude, I firmly believe that the failures of Elizabeth in her reign and the debt that she bestowed upon James and the corruption of the government at the time, although massive set backs, may have been minor if James had had a more mature attitude towards the value of money.
His spending of money would have been considered extravagant even in the most stable of time.DR KEVIN MACDONALD, AUTHOR, PSYCHOLOGIST AND HISTORIAN, is a Professor of Psychology at the California State University in Long Beach California.
Kevin MacDonald, PhD: Ever since the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in , Jewish organizations have.
As you can see from the chart, the percentage of Americans who had a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of trust in the news media has declined from over 70 percent shortly after Watergate to about 44 percent today. Why? That is my question here.
It’s a puzzle because during that same period. In Elizabeth I had died leaving a public debt of £,; thereby claiming most of the blame for England’s financial issues.
However, £, was still to be collected in government subsidies during James’s reign and £, had been raised through forced . The Godmakers II. Under Fire From Within and Without. Article Hyperlinks. Lawsuit Threatened - Careful Research?
- The Book of Mormon: Ancient or Modern - A Striking Parallel - Cloud of Darkness! - New Computer Study - B. H. Robert's Doubts - Extracts From Letters - Support the Lighthouse - Church Hides Documents From Prosecutors A real controversy has been raging in Salt Lake City ever since.
Say's Law and Supply Side Economics. It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments.
James was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. Eight months after James’s birth his father died when his house was destroyed by an explosion. After her third marriage, to James Hepburn, earl of .