Editing Charles I of England (section)

===Irish rebellion===
{{Main|Irish Rebellion of 1641}}
[[File:King Charles I, with the Order of the Garter - Anthony van Dyck.jpg|thumb|right|Charles wearing the [[Order of the Garter]], by van Dyck, {{circa}} 1637]]
Ireland's population was split into three main sociopolitical groups: the [[Gaelic Ireland|Gaelic Irish]], who were Catholic; the [[Normans in Ireland|Old English]], who were descended from [[Norman invasion of Ireland|medieval Normans]] and also predominantly Catholic; and the [[Plantations of Ireland|New English]], who were Protestant settlers from England and Scotland aligned with the English Parliament and the Covenanters. Strafford's administration had improved the Irish economy and boosted tax revenue, but had done so by heavy-handedly imposing order.<ref>{{harvnb|Carlton|1995|p=183}}; {{harvnb|Robertson|2005|pp=42–43}}.</ref> He had trained up a large Catholic army in support of the King and weakened the Irish Parliament's authority,{{sfn|Gillespie|2006|p=125}} while continuing to confiscate land from Catholics for Protestant settlement at the same time as promoting a Laudian Anglicanism that was anathema to Presbyterians.{{sfn|Coward|2003|p=172}} As a result, all three groups had become disaffected.<ref>{{harvnb|Carlton|1995|pp=183, 229}}; {{harvnb|Robertson|2005|p=42}}.</ref> Strafford's impeachment provided a new departure for Irish politics whereby all sides joined to present evidence against him.{{sfn|Gillespie|2006|p=130}} In a similar manner to the English Parliament, the Old English members of the Irish Parliament argued that while opposed to Strafford they remained loyal to Charles. They argued that the King had been led astray by malign counsellors,{{sfn|Gillespie|2006|p=131}} and that, moreover, a viceroy such as Strafford could emerge as a despotic figure instead of ensuring that the King was directly involved in governance.{{sfn|Gillespie|2006|p=137}}

Strafford's fall from power weakened Charles's influence in Ireland.<ref>{{harvnb|Carlton|1995|p=229}}; {{harvnb|Cust|2005|p=306}}.</ref> The dissolution of the Irish army was unsuccessfully demanded three times by the English Commons during Strafford's imprisonment,{{sfn|Kenyon|1978|p=127}} until lack of money eventually forced Charles to disband the army at the end of Strafford's trial.{{sfn|Russell|1991|p=298}} Disputes over the transfer of land ownership from native Catholic to settler Protestant,{{sfn|Gillespie|2006|p=3}} particularly in relation to the [[plantation of Ulster]],<ref>{{harvnb|Loades|1974|p=413}}; {{harvnb|Russell|1990|p=43}}.</ref> coupled with resentment at moves to ensure the Irish Parliament was subordinate to the Parliament of England,<ref>{{harvnb|Cust|2005|pp=307–308}}; {{harvnb|Russell|1990|p=19}}.</ref> sowed the seeds of rebellion. When armed conflict arose between the Gaelic Irish and New English in late October 1641, the Old English sided with the Gaelic Irish while simultaneously professing their loyalty to the King.{{sfn|Schama|2001|p=118}}

In November 1641, the House of Commons passed the [[Grand Remonstrance]], a long list of grievances against actions by Charles's ministers committed since the beginning of his reign (that were asserted to be part of a grand Catholic conspiracy of which the King was an unwitting member),{{sfn|Starkey|2006|p=112}} but it was in many ways a step too far by Pym and passed by only 11 votes, 159 to 148.<ref>{{harvnb|Gregg|1981|pp=340–341}}; {{harvnb|Loades|1974|p=415}}; {{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=127}}; {{harvnb|Starkey|2006|p=113}}.</ref> Furthermore, the Remonstrance had very little support in the House of Lords, which the Remonstrance attacked.<ref>{{harvnb|Kenyon|1978|p=135}}; {{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=128}}.</ref> The tension was heightened by news of the Irish rebellion, coupled with inaccurate rumours of Charles's complicity.{{sfn|Loades|1974|p=414}} Throughout November, a series of alarmist pamphlets published stories of atrocities in Ireland,<ref>{{harvnb|Carlton|1995|p=230}}; {{harvnb|Schama|2001|pp=118–120}}.</ref> including massacres of New English settlers by the native Irish who could not be controlled by the Old English lords.<ref>{{harvnb|Gillespie|2006|p=144}}; {{harvnb|Schama|2001|pp=118–120}}.</ref> Rumours of "papist" conspiracies circulated in England,<ref>{{harvnb|Loades|1974|pp=416–417}}; {{harvnb|Schama|2001|pp=118–120}}.</ref> and English anti-Catholic opinion was strengthened, damaging Charles's reputation and authority.{{sfn|Gregg|1981|pp=341–342}} The English Parliament distrusted Charles's motivations when he called for funds to put down the Irish rebellion; many members of the Commons suspected that forces he raised might later be used against Parliament itself.{{sfn|Coward|2003|p=200}} Pym's [[Militia Bill]] was intended to wrest control of the army from the King, but it did not have the support of the Lords, let alone Charles.{{sfn|Kenyon|1978|p=136}} Instead, the Commons passed the bill as an ordinance, which they claimed did not require royal assent.{{sfn|Carlton|1995|p=237}} The [[Militia Ordinance]] appears to have prompted more members of the Lords to support the King.{{sfn|Smith|1999|p=129}} In an attempt to strengthen his position, Charles generated great antipathy in London, which was already fast falling into lawlessness, when he placed the Tower of London under the command of Colonel [[Thomas Lunsford]], an infamous, albeit efficient, career officer.{{sfn|Kenyon|1978|p=137}} When rumours reached Charles that Parliament intended to impeach his wife for supposedly conspiring with the Irish rebels, he decided to take drastic action.<ref>{{harvnb|Carlton|1995|pp=235–236}}; {{harvnb|Cust|2005|pp=323–324}}; {{harvnb|Gregg|1981|p=343}}; {{harvnb|Hibbert|1968|p=160}}; {{harvnb|Loades|1974|p=417}}.</ref>