What Caused The English Civil War Essay
In this essay I will be deciding what the main cause of the civil war (1642).The three possible causes are Money, Religion and Politics (Power). There had been many long term and short term causes that slowly built up to leading to the war itself. All these three reasons reflected on Charles arguing with the parliament which made us say goodbye to the monarch. No king had ever been executed in England and the execution of Charles wasn’t greeted with happiness. How did the English Civil War break out? Let’s find out.
One of the reasons for the civil war was Charles’ lack of money, but before making any judgements, we need to know that the king was also influenced by his father(James I) He had many quarrels and that affected Charles’ view on the Parliament.This was a major, long term problem and was the main cause for the upcoming issues. …show more content…
The parliament wouldn’t give Charles money and said that Charles could only raise taxes after asking the parliament. King Charles was quite obstinate and so he dissolved the parliament and decided to rule by himself. He did this for eleven years which was called the personal rule. The evidence for this is that during the war with the Scots, parliament didn’t help him because of Charles’ personal rule. If Charles hadn’t imposed this new system of ruling, then they would have been more successful in the war and might have not lost as much money because the Parliament would’ve been on his side.
This point also links with power because Charles only ruled by himself because he felt that the Parliament had too much power over him .This was important because it happened for a long period of time (eleven years). This was definitely a long term issue because with the help of the parliament, he wouldn’t have lost William Laud, Strafford and lots of money spent on the war!I didn’t put this point in the Power section because I felt that this point was directly linked with money.
This was wrong because the parliament were only to help Charles not rule him! They were taking away the choices that he should have made. This is quite an important point because it made Charles do something even worse.
The greatest problem Charles initially encountered at this stage was a continuous lack of funds.He didn’t want to invite a new Parliament so he decided to ask the people of England for Ship tax.This was wrong because there was no war and he asked people who were not even living near the coast. In the ‘Money’ section, this is a very key point. This was a short term problem because soon the parliament did give him money (but in exchange for Strafford and Laud’s lives).This didn’t affect the importance too badly because even though he shouldn’t have asked for the money, he didn’t do it repeatedly. Another major influence for the cause of the war was religion. The main religious problem started right at the beginning of Charles’ ruling period, when Charles married Henrietta Maria, a French Catholic. We know this because many puritans were really angry at the King and some people even suspected him to secretly be a Catholic (who knows,maybe he grew to be in favour of Catholisicm in his later years)! I wouldn’t label this as a long or short term problem but I do think that this led up to quite a big war, even though it might not seem like it! This point links to power because the Parliament certainly didn’t want him to marry Henrietta Maria because they were scared that she would make England Catholic. This was thought to be quite important but now I don’t think so because from what I’ve learnt, she didn’t try to change her husband’s religion.
King Charles I was indeed very religious. He believed that he ruled with the Divine Right. This means that he thought that he was the king chosen by God.That is why when he made his first speech after his coronation, he mentioned this strongly. I know that this was true because I have seen bits of his speech in textbooks. This already made him seem really arrogant and that wasn’t a good start. This could also be stated as a long term problem because the parliament could have started to hate him right there! This is also such an important point because this was the first thing that he said to people and this probably put a bad reputation on him.
He preferred a very lavish form of worship and he thought that the bishops and priests were very important. This worries many Protestants as it appeared that Charles was becoming a Catholic. The Puritans, who were extreme Protestants,thought that this was very extreme and even though their King was a Protestant,the may have thought that he was not Protestant enough. In 1633 William Laud was put as the Archbishop of Canterbury by King Charles I. William Laud was a Protestant but thought that the Puritans were too extreme(just like Charles). William Laud wanted to bring a uniform way of worshipping. Laud also wanted to bring back some of the ‘catholic’ features.William Laud saw this as the ‘beauty of holiness’. Puritans saw this like a chance to make the Church more Catholic. In 1637 King Charles I and Archbishop Laud introduced a new Prayer Book to the people of Scotland. When it was introduced people started to riot a lot! The Scottish Presbyterians thought that the new Prayer Book was too alike the Catholic one. Although Scotland’s king was Charles, they were still a separate kingdom. The Presbyterians rebelled on him and destroyed his army. They forced Charles to pay £850 every day to keep them away! This was considered to be a long term problem because the war definitely wasn’t short and it did affect how his country saw him because he was left begging the Parliament for money! This point is also linked with power and money because the Parliament refused to give him the money at first until the King allowed them to kill Strafford and Laud.
The fight for power also became one of the main causes of the war. Charles believed in the divine right , which was a belief that Charles was king because god wanted him to be and that therefore everyone should obey him as they would obey god-with no excuses. Parliament said that they should have the ultimate say on issues. This was a long term problem because this speech kind of put a first impression on him and so he was portrayed as an arrogant and boastful person,and this was probably why the Parliament felt that they should have quite a lot of power.
As I have already said, the Personal rule was the time when Charles decided to rule by himself because he thought that the Parliament had too much power over him.
They also wanted to take control of the army but of course Charles refused because the Parliament were just asking for too much but they took control of his army anyway! This was a long term problem because it shows that the Parliament didn’t listen to the king at all. The importance of this was quite important because even though the Parliament weren’t very helpful, they could have been during the eleven years’ time of Personal Rule.
The Parliament set up a whole list of demands called the Grand Remonstrance which said what they should be in charge of such as how Charles’ children should be educated and that he had to call a Parliament at least every three years! Surely that wasn’t their job to decide and so this was totally unfair. The Members of Parliament were gaining even more power in their local areas and so they became spoiled and now wanted national power! This had great importance because this was a long term problem and the Grand Remonstrance was kept for a long
time!
Now so far we have only looked at how the Parliament took advantage of Charles and although Charles didn’t demand as much power, he still created his own court called the Star Chamber to fine people to help him raise money without asking for the Parliament’s help. Although he shouldn’t have done this I don’t think he had many choices to choose from anyway. This was a bit important because this also lasted for quite a long time!
To conclude, I think all of them together caused this war and it would be really hard to choose but I know that Power was the main cause because it links to all the other categories such as if the Parliament hadn’t been so superior, then Charles wouldn’t have needed to sign the Petition of Right and just ignore it because now it seems like it was Charles’ fault. Also Charles wouldn’t have needed to collect ship tax, he could have just asked the parliament for the money. I think that it is fair to pick out just one of these reasons because this is linked with money (ship tax point) and religion (parliament could have handed over the money for the Scots without executing Strafford and Laud)
One of the reasons for the civil war was Charles’ lack of money, but before making any judgements, we need to know that the king was also influenced by his father(James I) He had many quarrels and that affected Charles’ view on the Parliament.This was a major, long term problem and was the main cause for the upcoming issues. …show more content…
The parliament wouldn’t give Charles money and said that Charles could only raise taxes after asking the parliament. King Charles was quite obstinate and so he dissolved the parliament and decided to rule by himself. He did this for eleven years which was called the personal rule. The evidence for this is that during the war with the Scots, parliament didn’t help him because of Charles’ personal rule. If Charles hadn’t imposed this new system of ruling, then they would have been more successful in the war and might have not lost as much money because the Parliament would’ve been on his side.
This point also links with power because Charles only ruled by himself because he felt that the Parliament had too much power over him .This was important because it happened for a long period of time (eleven years). This was definitely a long term issue because with the help of the parliament, he wouldn’t have lost William Laud, Strafford and lots of money spent on the war!I didn’t put this point in the Power section because I felt that this point was directly linked with money.
This was wrong because the parliament were only to help Charles not rule him! They were taking away the choices that he should have made. This is quite an important point because it made Charles do something even worse.
The greatest problem Charles initially encountered at this stage was a continuous lack of funds.He didn’t want to invite a new Parliament so he decided to ask the people of England for Ship tax.This was wrong because there was no war and he asked people who were not even living near the coast. In the ‘Money’ section, this is a very key point. This was a short term problem because soon the parliament did give him money (but in exchange for Strafford and Laud’s lives).This didn’t affect the importance too badly because even though he shouldn’t have asked for the money, he didn’t do it repeatedly. Another major influence for the cause of the war was religion. The main religious problem started right at the beginning of Charles’ ruling period, when Charles married Henrietta Maria, a French Catholic. We know this because many puritans were really angry at the King and some people even suspected him to secretly be a Catholic (who knows,maybe he grew to be in favour of Catholisicm in his later years)! I wouldn’t label this as a long or short term problem but I do think that this led up to quite a big war, even though it might not seem like it! This point links to power because the Parliament certainly didn’t want him to marry Henrietta Maria because they were scared that she would make England Catholic. This was thought to be quite important but now I don’t think so because from what I’ve learnt, she didn’t try to change her husband’s religion.
King Charles I was indeed very religious. He believed that he ruled with the Divine Right. This means that he thought that he was the king chosen by God.That is why when he made his first speech after his coronation, he mentioned this strongly. I know that this was true because I have seen bits of his speech in textbooks. This already made him seem really arrogant and that wasn’t a good start. This could also be stated as a long term problem because the parliament could have started to hate him right there! This is also such an important point because this was the first thing that he said to people and this probably put a bad reputation on him.
He preferred a very lavish form of worship and he thought that the bishops and priests were very important. This worries many Protestants as it appeared that Charles was becoming a Catholic. The Puritans, who were extreme Protestants,thought that this was very extreme and even though their King was a Protestant,the may have thought that he was not Protestant enough. In 1633 William Laud was put as the Archbishop of Canterbury by King Charles I. William Laud was a Protestant but thought that the Puritans were too extreme(just like Charles). William Laud wanted to bring a uniform way of worshipping. Laud also wanted to bring back some of the ‘catholic’ features.William Laud saw this as the ‘beauty of holiness’. Puritans saw this like a chance to make the Church more Catholic. In 1637 King Charles I and Archbishop Laud introduced a new Prayer Book to the people of Scotland. When it was introduced people started to riot a lot! The Scottish Presbyterians thought that the new Prayer Book was too alike the Catholic one. Although Scotland’s king was Charles, they were still a separate kingdom. The Presbyterians rebelled on him and destroyed his army. They forced Charles to pay £850 every day to keep them away! This was considered to be a long term problem because the war definitely wasn’t short and it did affect how his country saw him because he was left begging the Parliament for money! This point is also linked with power and money because the Parliament refused to give him the money at first until the King allowed them to kill Strafford and Laud.
The fight for power also became one of the main causes of the war. Charles believed in the divine right , which was a belief that Charles was king because god wanted him to be and that therefore everyone should obey him as they would obey god-with no excuses. Parliament said that they should have the ultimate say on issues. This was a long term problem because this speech kind of put a first impression on him and so he was portrayed as an arrogant and boastful person,and this was probably why the Parliament felt that they should have quite a lot of power.
As I have already said, the Personal rule was the time when Charles decided to rule by himself because he thought that the Parliament had too much power over him.
They also wanted to take control of the army but of course Charles refused because the Parliament were just asking for too much but they took control of his army anyway! This was a long term problem because it shows that the Parliament didn’t listen to the king at all. The importance of this was quite important because even though the Parliament weren’t very helpful, they could have been during the eleven years’ time of Personal Rule.
The Parliament set up a whole list of demands called the Grand Remonstrance which said what they should be in charge of such as how Charles’ children should be educated and that he had to call a Parliament at least every three years! Surely that wasn’t their job to decide and so this was totally unfair. The Members of Parliament were gaining even more power in their local areas and so they became spoiled and now wanted national power! This had great importance because this was a long term problem and the Grand Remonstrance was kept for a long
time!
Now so far we have only looked at how the Parliament took advantage of Charles and although Charles didn’t demand as much power, he still created his own court called the Star Chamber to fine people to help him raise money without asking for the Parliament’s help. Although he shouldn’t have done this I don’t think he had many choices to choose from anyway. This was a bit important because this also lasted for quite a long time!
To conclude, I think all of them together caused this war and it would be really hard to choose but I know that Power was the main cause because it links to all the other categories such as if the Parliament hadn’t been so superior, then Charles wouldn’t have needed to sign the Petition of Right and just ignore it because now it seems like it was Charles’ fault. Also Charles wouldn’t have needed to collect ship tax, he could have just asked the parliament for the money. I think that it is fair to pick out just one of these reasons because this is linked with money (ship tax point) and religion (parliament could have handed over the money for the Scots without executing Strafford and Laud)