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.
Two of the most significant factors in the development of European nation states are the enforcement of the law and the political relationship between central government and the provinces. The establishment of powerful national institutions in the Middle Ages, the successful incorporation of its geographical fringes, and the involvement of local elites in implementing national law and policies have made England a challenging subject to test this interaction between the center and the localities. Although this relationship could never be free of tensions, reflection on the context of the English Civil War has suggested a new interpretation. Pursuing the inquiries initiated by the so-called “gentry controversy” in the 1950s and 1960s, a group of historians has studied individual counties and argued that, for local aristocrats and gentlemen, provincial values and issues took precedence over national policies. The Civil War, in their view, appeared to be a conflict between an increasingly interventionist and “nationalizing” central government and semiautonomous shires.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.