Trump Is Following in the Footsteps of a Failed English King

Charles received the victory that he sought, but not the legitimization that he desired. Seven of the twelve judges sided with the king, with the remaining five judges dissenting. Charles grew dissatisfied that almost half of his own judges had ruled against him. The maximalist argument that his lawyers had made was constitutionally transformational as well, inflaming the opposition and delegitimizing the courts. Copies of the dissenting judges’ opinions were widely distributed among the public.

“What [the king’s lawyers] had done was convince the judges that England was, if one looked closely enough, a truly absolute monarchy,” Healey explained. “‘If we grant ship money,’ one critic would write, ‘we grant all besides.’ The king, when it came down to it, had an absolute right to take his subjects’ property as and when he felt that he needed it. To those versed in Roman history, it implied that the English people were little better than slaves, for they had no secure control of their lands and goods. More to the point, it underlined the viability of Charles’s rule without Parliament for the foreseeable future.”

Events only deteriorated even further from there. The Scots rose up in revolt once again, frustrated by overtaxation and religious differences, and Charles struggled to fund an English army to counter them. (It did not help that more than a few Englishmen sympathized with their northern neighbors.) The revolt forced Charles to end the Personal Rule and summon Parliament in 1640 to request additional funds. It would prove to be a momentous decision: the Long Parliament, as it became known by historians, would ultimately wage war against Charles in the English Civil War, overthrowing him and establishing England’s first and only republic.