In seeking to explain why all three kingdoms dissolved into rebellion and war between 1637 and 1642, it is tempting to focus upon the personality and policies of Charles I. This wouldbe to ignore longer-term institutional problemswithin and between the three kingdoms which were not of Charles’s making and which he inherited in 1625. However, there is broad consensus among historians that Charles’s character and his view of kingship created difficulties and that the king must bear a large personal responsibility for provoking the crises which overwhelmed him. Charles was a cold, formal figure who rarely sought to explain himself or to win affection. Instead, he emphasised the majesty of the crown and required unquestioning obedience. Although capable of seeking advice, he often failed to understand viewpoints different from his own and instead equated them with disloyalty. A hard-working monarch of strong convictions, Charles pressed ahead with his policies to extend royal power and to reform the church in an inflexible and unyielding way. Possessing none of his father’s willingness to compromise and conciliate, he proceeded even when a policy was arousing great opposition or was proving unworkable, believing that a mixture of divine support, the aura of monarchy, physical force and duplicity could secure adherence. By the early 1640s Charles’s inept approach had created a breakdown of trust in each of his kingdoms, which in turn contributed to the outbreak of armed resistance in all three.