For centuries, people have questioned the role of the taxpayer in funding the British royal family. Under the reign of the Stuarts in the 17e century, that role was challenged to the extreme as a series of spendthrift monarchs treated their subjects like an ever-open bank to fund their lavish lifestyles.
James I of Scotland and England was the definition of the poor little rich prince. Son of Mary, Queen of Scots, James was essentially an orphan when he was a baby, when his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley was assassinated and his mother imprisoned. He has ruled the warring and money-poor Scottish nation since he was one year old and inherited the throne of England in March 1603, upon the death of childless Elizabeth I.
The first ruler of the Stuart dynasty, James was overwhelmed by the riches he encountered in England and began to spend like the absolute monarch he was.
As historian Adrian Tinniswood writes in Behind the Throne: An Inside History of the British Royal Household: “Household economics – economy of any kind, in fact – was not James I’s strong point.”
READ MORE: The extremely different childhood of Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots
King James I levies several taxes
A portrait of James VI and I, King of Scotland, England and Ireland (1566-1625).
Robert Alexander / Getty Images
James and his wife, Anne from Denmark, immediately started spending as if they had just won the lottery. As CN Trueman notes in James I and Royal Revenue, the king excused his expenses by saying that he was “like a poor man wandering about forty years in a desert and a barren land, and now arrived in the land of promise”.
The Crown obtained money from various sources of income. There was “ordinary income” from Crown land, court fees, and monopolies. There were many taxes levied on British subjects – from customs duties on all movable property to taxes on landowners, traders and farmers. The Crown was also allowed to purchase all food and commodities at discounted prices under the much hated distribution system.
But that was not enough. “By mid-September 1603,” writes Tinniswood, “when the King and Queen were advancing through Wiltshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire, household expenses seemed to reach a rate of £ 100,000 a year, or twice the rate. the amount Elizabeth had spent. “Think how the country feels,” wrote Secretary of State Robert Cecil.
The country – making its voice heard through the increasingly noisy House of Commons – reacted angrily when James raised new taxes to fund new peerages for his Scottish favorites, servants for his large family, a new wardrobe luxurious and endless banquets. Queen Anne’s beloved court (entertainment) masks were especially expensive. The highly problematic Masque of Blackness cost around 8.5 million pounds ($ 11,750,400) in today’s cash. According to Tinniswood, “By the time it was staged, there were widespread grunts of annoyance at the lavish spending involved.
When James did not get the money he asked for from Parliament, the unpopular King imposed tariffs and taxes on middle-class merchants without their consent. He is also enjoying the popularity of his teenage heir Henry, future Prince of Wales.
“In 1609, cash-strapped James I resurrected an almost forgotten feudal levy, ‘formerly owed by the common law of England’, which could be demanded of Henry’s knight when he reached the age of sixteen, ”writes Tinniswood. “The proceeds of this tax were used to pay off James’ debts.”
READ MORE: Why We Pay Taxes
Parliament tries to rule over royal spending
James I King seen in Parliament, circa 1605.
Hulton Archives / Getty Images
It still wasn’t enough. In 1610, Secretary of State Robert Cecil proposed “The Great Contract” to Parliament in an attempt to curb royal spending. The proposed contract would give James a guaranteed, taxpayer-funded income of £ 200,000 a year, and in return he would give up some royal rights. But the king was reluctant to give up privileges such as granting funds, and the House of Commons was once again worried about raising taxes, so no deal was ever reached.
In 1620, courtier Lionel Cranfield, who had become Lord Treasurer, was trying to put the King’s disastrous finances in order. Household spending has been cut by around 50 percent, but Cranfield’s overall corruption has worsened Parliament’s already terrible relationship with the Crown.
There was also the problem of Charles, the new Prince of Wales (Henry had died in 1612), who roamed through Europe, spending a fortune on fine arts and decorations. According to historian Breeze Barrington, author of the article How Charles I lost his mind because of his thirst for the world’s largest art collection, “An account book dating from 1623 documents vast sums of money spent on elaborate clothing, jewelry, and art, as well as an elephant and camels.
Charles’s actions deeply upset his equally irresponsible father. “James wrote to his son begging him to come home, telling him the royal purse was empty,” Barrington wrote.
Only two years later, Charles ascended the throne upon the death of his father. His expenses would be as out of control as his parents and lead to dire consequences.
“He would continue to spend huge sums of money on art, clothing and entertainment at court,” Barrington writes. “He would ostracize an already distant parliament and, four years after becoming king, embark on an 11-year personal regime under which he would impose unpopular and barely legal taxes on his people.
READ MORE: What is the Queen’s role in UK government?
Charles I executed
King Charles I of England was led to his execution.
Time Life Pictures / Mansell / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images
This abuse of public funds angered commoners and aristocrats, especially the king’s use of “forced loans”. These loans were little more than a reshuffle of the land nobility. Charles also hit traders with exorbitant tariffs on goods that were not sanctioned by Parliament. This mismanagement led to 76 gentlemen being jailed for refusing to give money to the king for his familiar projects and wars.
All these actions have led the public to rethink the role of the monarchy in their country. English general and statesman Oliver Cromwell took advantage of this discontent and led parliamentary forces to overthrow the king.
In 1649 Charles I was executed outside the banquet hall of Whitehall Palace. For 11 years, Britain did not have a monarch. Cromwell became Lord Protector of England and held the post until his death in 1658. After Cromwell’s son assumed the role of his father for a brief period, Charles II was recalled from exile and ascended on the throne in 1660. King Charles first promised to put an end to “those excesses known to be in great offices”.
But the allure of glamor and fame was too great – as would all of Stuart’s male leaders. Soon Charles II infuriated the public with his lavish spending (and cadre of mistresses and illegitimate children), and the cycle began again.
