"Charles I was to blame for the English Civil War" How far do you Agree?
The English Civil War lasted from 1642 to 1649. The war was a result of a split between King Charles I and Parliament. Neither side was willing to back down over the principles that they held and civil war was the only way this disagreement could be solved. The country split into those who supported the king and those who supported Parliament – the classic ingredients for a civil war. It has been argued that Charles I was the main reason that war broke out. I will be investigating whether this is a far accusation by looking at the long-term and the short-term causes for the English Civil War and assessing how far Charles was really to blame.
Firstly, it has been argued that Charles was to blame for the long-term reasons such as wanting to make changes to religion, the power of the king and money. For example, Charles was partly to blame for money because he was trying to buy off the Scottish with £850 a day (which he could not afford) as a result from trying to make the Scottish Puritans. They rebelled and tried to attack. Charles was partly to blame for religious reasons like the one above, and some other reasons as well. He made William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury and he tried to make England a Catholic country. Also, he married a woman named Henrietta Maria. She was a Catholic, so naturally Parliament were concerned that England was going to return to Catholicism. Charles was to blame because of power. He let his friends help him with important decisions and Power. People did not approve of some of the choices they made such as raising taxes.
Although, Charles was not entirely to blame. Parliament played a role in all of this. For example, Parliament was partly to blame for money because they had made King Charles come back every year to collect the taxes instead of just coming once because they did not trust him with the money because they thought that he would spend it all on his friends and parties. Parliament also was partly to blame for Religion
Firstly, it has been argued that Charles was to blame for the long-term reasons such as wanting to make changes to religion, the power of the king and money. For example, Charles was partly to blame for money because he was trying to buy off the Scottish with £850 a day (which he could not afford) as a result from trying to make the Scottish Puritans. They rebelled and tried to attack. Charles was partly to blame for religious reasons like the one above, and some other reasons as well. He made William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury and he tried to make England a Catholic country. Also, he married a woman named Henrietta Maria. She was a Catholic, so naturally Parliament were concerned that England was going to return to Catholicism. Charles was to blame because of power. He let his friends help him with important decisions and Power. People did not approve of some of the choices they made such as raising taxes.
Although, Charles was not entirely to blame. Parliament played a role in all of this. For example, Parliament was partly to blame for money because they had made King Charles come back every year to collect the taxes instead of just coming once because they did not trust him with the money because they thought that he would spend it all on his friends and parties. Parliament also was partly to blame for Religion