Ii

Mark Kishlansky's revaluation of Charles I is welcome and timely.1 It offers an opportunity for historians not only to develop a more accurate picture of the king, but also to focus more clearly on the important issues raised by his reign. Kishlansky's arguments rest on detailed evidence which will require critical scrutiny by historians of all Charles's kingdoms. Kishlansky rightly focuses on Scotland, where his case is pressed particularly vigorously: ‘His [Charles's] conduct in regard to Scotland was nearly the opposite of everything that has ever been said about it’.2 This has implications for England too, since the question of whether Charles's reigns in England and Scotland made him ‘two kings or one’ can be asked of him, as it famously has been of James VI and I.3 What follows is a Scottish contribution to the debate, focusing on three central issues: Charles's treatment of the Scots in his revocation of 1625, his introduction of the Scottish Prayer Book in 1637, and his handling of the crisis that resulted in 1637–8. The conclusion assesses Charles's Scottish policies in the light of current understandings of his father's reign.

Art · Kingdom · Literature · Notice · Political science · Politics · Reign · Scots · Scrutiny · Classics · Historical Studies of British Isles · History · Law · Scottish History and National Identity