How successful were James VI and I in dealing with multi-kingdom problems? In modern society the unification of the British Isles is often taken for granted. Few take the time to recognize the roots of its conception, and for many this area of ​​history is simply swept under the rug. The challenge of sparking the idea of ​​unification was given to James VI and me. Before the death of Queen Elizabeth I, King James VI had accumulated a lot of experience in ruling Scotland, and seemed almost to be lurking to stake his claim as King of England as well. He had the vision of creating a union of hearts and minds, designing a new identity for the countries. However, his efforts were equally thwarted by the stubborn questions that arise in such an ambitious goal. One of the most important factors he fought against was simply his lack of experience in governing a country like England. England was much richer than Scotland and had a much larger population. He had also established his own type of government that held the country together in the months before James' arrival. These contrasts with Scottish rule would prove challenging. There was also the problem of religion. James sought to link the Scottish Kirk and the Church of England. But this was obviously a very delicate task that would prove extremely difficult to conquer. Finally there was the question of separate governments and separate kingdoms. Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland were all governed separately and had independent needs to satisfy. This made governing an even more complicated task. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay James VI's and mine's fundamental flaw was his lack of experience in governing a country like England. There were obviously no “British” institutions in existence at that time. The English had its own parliament for English matters. Scotland held its day-to-day government through the Scottish Privy Council. Wales was governed by English law and Ireland had its own separate parliament. This left James with a very broad scope of leadership. He was clearly very comfortable with Scotland due to his experience, but this was written off as a weak foundation for England. There was also a huge lack of communication. He had to carry out most of his orders completely blindly, relying on his faith in those he left in charge. James was also said to view his new parliament as advisors and not valuable policy makers. However he was forced to call parliament several times because he was dependent on their money. James spent a lot. He relied on the reuse of royal funds to maintain his power. He would bribe his nobles and loyalists to receive their support in return. He was also said to be spending up to £80,000 a year on his family, which was a huge waste of funds. Eventually the banks would feel embarrassed to refuse the Crown loans and would give them some of the money as a compromise. Evidence of James's unpopularity in England is conveyed in the writings of Lawrence Stone. "As a hated Scotsman, James was suspicious of the English from the start and his awkward presence, his mumbling speeches and his dirty ways did not inspire respect." [1] This unpopular opinion had a ripple effect on James' success in ruling his multiple kingdoms. it was clear that England's lack of confidence had impacted on his negative experience in the country. Yet, at the same time, the efforts ofJames to influence England would have had negative effects on Scotland. People feared that his newfound determination would mean neglecting his home. His solution only further hampered the royal treasury, as he sent large sums of money home to Scotland, almost subtly benefiting the country. However, this seemed to work, as conveyed by Gordon Donaldson. "He may not have been the most able of the Stewarts, but he was certainly the most successful in governing Scotland and bending it to his will." [2] It is clear that James's unfamiliarity with English rule had stifled much of his popularity within the country, but he always managed to resolve this problem. He took advantage of the support he bought and laid the foundation of the union and, to a large extent, managed to overcome the problem of his bad track record. The union did not disintegrate, on the contrary it bought time so that it could gradually grow. He also managed to keep the countries at bay from any war in Europe for a considerable period of time, allowing for focus on developing and bonding the countries. Another problem that became apparent when faced with the challenge of managing multiple Kingdoms was the number of religious branches. Religion played a very dominant role in 17th century life. There are huge contrasts between early modern churches and those of today. James saw their similarities as a key indicator for unification. “Protestantism as the official religion gave the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, as well as the principality of Wales, a cause to unite around…” [3] The idea of ​​religious diversity and pluralism was disgusting. People basically run their lives on the premise that if you were disloyal to the national church, then you would be disloyal to the monarch and your soul would not be saved. Church attendance was in no way a hobby. It was essential to be seen worshiping once a week. Sermons were the central part of worship and, in hindsight, convey the power religion held over people. At that time there was nothing in the form of a national press and for many the Church was the only source of news. This has allowed a certain prejudice to be implemented among the general public. But the key problem for James resulting from such a strong religion was his stubbornness. He was the supreme governor of the Churches. Meaning that by God's law he was responsible for their doctrine and organization. He saw himself as the defender of the Protestant faith and sought to unite the religions of the English Church and the Scottish Kirk. Of course this was not an easy task. Neither church wanted to be tampered with. Tom Webster explains that 'the contrasting contexts and varying fortunes of the three kingdoms in religious terms immediately make a holistic analysis of the three kingdoms a task performed at the expense of understanding; cohesion would join incoherence, so to speak.' [4]James did not have the religious understanding of the Churches to understand that such a drastic religious union was not possible. James clearly failed in his goal and was overwhelmed by this problem, but he was cunning in his defeat. He recognized the importance of the Scottish Kirk, also played by Webster. [5]"Apart from the crown, the Kirk was the only institution of national government and, as James saw it, it needed a means of governing at a distance that was more manipulable and less likely to thwart this desire." James needed the Kirk on his side if he was to maintain his influence in Scotland, and he was not as easily manipulated as the English Church. So, to conclude, when faced with the problem of accountability across multiple branches of religion, James failed to create any kind of.