Citation

Langelüddecke H. Hist. Res. 2007; 80(208): 225-260.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1468-2281.2007.00387.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The successful implementation of Charles I's personal rule relied much on the co-operation of parish officers whose workload increased significantly in the sixteen-thirties. There is little evidence that the mounting pressure and conflicting loyalties Charles I's reform projects caused resulted in widespread unwillingness to serve as parish officer or led to a changing social composition among office-holders. Local customs continued to determine the appointments of officers. The frequent use of rotas in allocating parish offices, the fact that many parishioners served several terms of office, and the presence of men from all social strata of local communities among parish officers all suggest that Caroline parochial government was considerably inclusive and that the village élites continued to serve for crown and parish. Consequently, parish offices, including the demanding office of petty constable, did not experience a loss of prestige during the personal rule, but parishioners served because they accepted their turn or appreciated the status of the office. Many contemporaries may also have valued parish offices because they provided opportunities to adapt government policies to the political culture of the parish and to enforce only selectively some of the controversial schemes of the sixteen-thirties.