Preview

Why did Charles I lose the First Bishops War?

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
652 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why did Charles I lose the First Bishops War?
Why did Charles I lose the First Bishops War?
The First Bishops War is defined as two conflicts between England and Scotland in 1639 and 1640. The cause of the war was due to the Scottish reaction against Charles I attempt to reform the Scottish church. After the implementation of the Scottish National Covenant against the King’s reforms in 1638, the Covenanters became the dominant political and religious force in Scotland. The main reasons for Charles losing the First Bishops War was due to the following factors: lack of funds, lack of support for the war among his subjects and lack of experience among his commanders.
The first factor that led to Charles I losing the First Bishops War was the lack of funding. This was because Parliament had taken control of taxes before the civil war and enjoyed a substantial financial advantage, which also leads to the next factor of the lack of support and discipline from the Parliamentarian forces. Following the outbreak of the Scottish Revolution and Hampden’s case, the ship money yield fell dramatically from 90% collection to 20%. Charles tried to deal with the Scots, without recourse to Parliament. Facing financial problems and not wanting to recall Parliament, Charles negotiated the Truce of Berwick in 1639 agreeing to a meeting of a Scottish assembly as Edinburgh and Parliament as well as disbandment of both armies. On his return, Wentworth tried to advise Charles to call an English Parliament as the only means of raising money to fight the scots. However, Charles refused to compromise when he met with the Parliament and he dissolved it determined to face the Scots in the field. Alongside the attempt to collect the ship money, Charles had called for a coat and conduct money which was a tax to support the county-trained bands when they had to serve outside their country. It was supposed to provide for food and other expenses such as transport however there was widespread opposition to this.
This links to the next

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In terms of finance, it can be argued that the situation was not successful. The Government managing it could not provide a stable financial settlement. Largely the King did not have much in the way of money, and Charles' excessive spending on pleasurable activities, at the beginning of his reign only exacerbated the disastrous financial situation. Initially, although Charles agreed to give up feudal dues that were revived by his father, he was granted an annual income of £1.2 million by Parliament. However, this arrangement had two drawbacks. Firstly, the financial settlement that Charles was given, was simply not adequate to his needs. Secondly, the hearth tax that was imposed to raise the money was highly unpopular to the people. It is hard to say a reign is 'successful' if the Monarch is unpopular, especially as the country at that time, was still suffering from the financial situation left behind by the…

    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Firstly, in 1569 the Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland gathered 6000 armed Catholic soldiers in an attempt to free Mary, overthrow Elizabeth and make England Roman Catholic once more. This was the Northern Rebellion. Luckily for Elizabeth, she was able to gather an army large enough to defeat the rebellion before it caused too much damage, but this event opened the Queen’s eyes to how angry and powerful the Catholics were…

    • 986 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles I did not go along with the parliament. He took a serious hit during his 22 years as king. He began to give into extra parliamentary resorts such as, new tariffs and duties and collection of discontinued taxes. This angered the parliament as taxes were being illegally collected for an already unfortunate war and one that involved France…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    James I was an absolutist ruler who emphasized the divine right of kings and sought to restrain Parliament under his will. Consequently, conflicts were inevitable as James I, and ensuing rulers, often found himself deficient of funds, and Parliament served as the gateway to the money. James I and his successor Charles I called Parliamentary meetings solely to ascertain the issue of funds. During this period, Parliament was rarely called upon and after these debates for money, Charles I and James I completely dissolved the Parliament. I did so because he agreed to admit the illegality of his taxes in turn for funding from Parliament. Afterwards, he abolished the Parliament to pursue his own endeavors. Furthermore, during Charles tenure, the English Civil War took place as a result from the lack of amity between Charles and Parliament. The Scottish invaded England, but Parliament refused to allow Charles to raise an army, because they feared he would abuse his powers and assail English citizens who opposed him. Charles I was eventually defeated and executed by Oliver Cromwell. Following the inadequacy of Cromwell, Charles II rose to power and was keyed the "merry monarch" for his easy-going nature. He imposed the Cabal system, a group of five individuals who handled the political issues of England; the term Cabal stems from the initials of each official member. This system acted as a type of Parliament in its methods of governing. During this period as a whole, it is evident that Parliament often conflicted with the ideals of the ruling monarch.…

    • 540 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ap American History Dbq

    • 289 Words
    • 2 Pages

    During the 1630 's, there was a religious civil war. This war was between the Puritans, also known as the Protestants, and the Cavaliers, also known as the Catholics. This relgious war lasted from the year 1642 until the year of 1651. During this time, King Charles I was the monarch of England. His father, James I was ruler prior. James did not change anything about England after Queen Elizabeth 's death. He did not change the government, nor the religion. Unlike his father, Charles believed that Catholicism must be enforced in England. Because of Charles and his changing of religion, the civil war in England took place.…

    • 289 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of the main reasons why Charles and Parliament failed to reach a settlement was due to religion, especially with the division between the Political Presbyterians and Political Independents. The differences between the two were that Political Presbyterians favoured a negotiated peace with Charles and did not approve of the New Model Army, and were also drawn more closely to the Presbyterian Scots whereas the Political Independents were in favour of a more considerable measure of religious toleration and disliked the authoritarianism of Scottish Presbyterianism. This division throughout Parliament meant that they had failed to reach a settlement negotiating peace terms that was to be decided upon them. In July 1646, the Political Presbyterians had presented Charles with the Newcastle Propositions as their plan for settlement which consisted of severe terms such as Charles was to accept Presbyterianism for three years in England, Parliament was to have control of the militia for 20 years, and the Triennial Act was not to be abolished and to have regular parliaments. Charles rejected these terms of the Newcastle Propositions and instead offered counter-proposals suggesting that the…

    • 1416 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The leadership of Charles I was an important factor in the defeat of the royalist cause. Charles was indecisive by nature, and the decisions he did make were often poor. For example, his poor choice of leaders, for example Rupert, lead to many military failures, seen in battles such as Edgehill and Marston Moor. After Edgehill, Charles made the crucial error of retreating back to Oxford rather than pushing forward to London. He also divided royalist councils by choosing leaders who quarrelled, such as Rupert and Digby, whose conflicting advice contributed to a great defeat at Naseby. The Cessation Treaty, an alliance between the royalists and the Irish rebels, again proved Charles to be a poor decision maker. This reinforced the impression that Charles favoured Catholics, turning what was a political conflict into a religious one, which in turn provided parliamentary troops an added fervour in the field. However, the real damage to the royalist cause had been done far before the first battle. The legacy of Charles, the fear of a return to personal rule mobilised people into battle.…

    • 976 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    From start of this period, right through to the end, James constantly faced difficulties with parliament. These difficulties weren’t simply limited to his determination to seek a union with Scotland, there were far more issues and instances which caused difficulties with parliament such as clashes between royal prerogative and parliamentary privilege, finance and how James raised money.…

    • 741 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles’ decision to impose a prayer book on Scotland in 1637 proved to be an ill-advised move. It was due in part to Charles’ obsession with creating a unified Kingdom based on his strongly held Laudian religious ideas. Without understanding the Scottish plight he brashly introduced the prayer book, triggering a Scottish backlash against not only against religious reforms but Charles’ foreign rule. Rallying behind their National Covenant, the Scottish manoeuvred Charles into a position through the First and Second Bishops Wars where he was forced to call Parliament. This…

    • 1970 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    parliament frq

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages

    James I's belief in "divine right" of kings, which meant God had chosen him to be ruler, led him not to rely on Parliament. Rather than depend on Parliament, James I and his successor, Charles I looked for other ways to acquire funds such as illegally levying taxes. Parliament was rarely called on during this period. In response to Charles illegal taxation, Parliament passed the Petition of Right which stated that, to pass any law the ruler must consent to Parliament. In order to continue ruling without Parliament, Charles used Ship Money to collect taxes as revenue. He might have been able to rule indefinitely without Parliament if not for his religious policies which provoked war with Scotland and forced Charles to call Parliament into session. This session, known as the Long Parliament was determined to limit the power of the king. It resolved that Parliament would meet at least every three years. Parliament later split with Charles I and declared war on him. Both James I and Charles I fought to suppress Parliament during their reigns and claimed absolute power due to the "divine right" of kings.…

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Your Inner Fish

    • 1366 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Your Inner Fish: A Review of Chapter 4 In Your Inner Fish, a book about the study of evolution in mammals, chapter four is dedicated to the study of teeth. Neil Shubin is explicit in his insistence that teeth are extremely important when studying evolution of the human body. He uses three main points to explain this to the reader. First, through the function of teeth. Then by revealing the anatomy of teeth. And finally by discussing tooth-to-tooth occlusion. Teeth are used to manipulate larger objects so that they may fit into a smaller mouth. Shubin writes ”Mouths are only so big, and teeth enable creatures to eat things that are bigger than their mouths” (Shubin 60). Without teeth creatures would have a smaller variety of options when it came to food choices. Bigger fish could only eat smaller fish and so on. As explained by Shubin “… teeth can be the great equalizer: smaller fish can munch on bigger fish if they have good teeth” (Shubin 60). So we derive from this that teeth can play an important role in the food chain and thus in evolution. However, teeth play a more important part than this. By studying the anatomy of teeth many secrets can be revealed about ancient reptiles and mammals. For instance, Shubin relates that “The bumps, pits and ridges on teeth often reflect the diet” (Shubin 60). By knowing the diet of an ancient creature, it is reasonable to see how a paleontologist and evolutionist can follow the emergence of the omnivore over the carnivore and herbivore. And the hardness of teeth make it the “best-preserved animal we find in the fossil record for many time periods” (Shubin 61). This clue to these ancient animal’s diets can “give us a good window on how different ways of feeding came about” (Shubin 61). So, the shape of the teeth and the general mineral make-up both contribute to the usefulness of teeth to the scientist.…

    • 1366 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A Satyre On Charles II

    • 932 Words
    • 4 Pages

    According to a letter dated 20 January 1673/4, whose testimony is corroborated by the headings in several early texts of the following poem, "my Lord Rochester fled from Court some time since for delivering (by mistake) into the King's hands a terrible lampoon of ihs own making against the King, instead of another the King asked him for." ... The opening lines of the poem, contrasting the peaceful interests of Charles II with the belligerent ambitions of Louis XIV, apparently refer to the approaching end of the Third Dutch War. By the Treaty of Westminster, signed on 9 February 1673/4, Charles withdrew from this confluct which the English and French had waged jointly against the Dutch since Early 1672, leaving Louis to pursue his military conquests on the continent for another four years.…

    • 932 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Foreign support was vital to the Jacobites in both the rebellions of 1715 and 1745-46. Many British Jacobites based their participation in the rebellions on the arrival of foreign assistance. The French support for the rebellion of 1715 was hampered by the death of Louis XIV in 1714. The Duke of Orleans succeeded Louis XIV and with the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht still standing and his own designs on becoming heir-apparent the Duke needed peace and an understanding with Britain.1 France, in both the ‘15 and the ‘45 was always faced with more demands on its strengths than it could possibly meet. Only if the French strategists could see the exiled house of Stuart as a priority would support be forthcoming. James ordered his followers and sympathizers to do all they could to involve France and England, hoping for an intervention.2 The Spanish participated and aided the Jacobites during the latter stages of the 1715 rising. In late December a shipment of £15,000 of Spanish gold was despatched, but with luck not on the rebels side it was wrecked on the beach at St Andrews Bay.3 Similarly in the 1745-46 rising the French ship “Le Prince Charles” carrying funds was intercepted by the Royal Navy forcing Charles Edward into an early and fateful battle in April 1746.4 The lack of financial aid sounded the death knell to both rebellions. In the ‘45 it is thought that Louis XV had left his decision to commit himself to the cause far too late, holding back to find out how serious the rebellion in Scotland was.5 This unfortunate lack of foreign assistance was a key factor in the failure of the rebellions.…

    • 1427 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    3. Queen Anne's War (1701-1713): The war generated real conflicts: border fighting with the Spaniards in the South as well as with the French and their Indian allies in the North. The Treaty of Utrecht, which brought the conflict to a close, transferred substantial…

    • 776 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In England, the civil war was a rebellion by parliament against the king. There was a direct conflict and struggle in determining each of their roles in governing the nation. After the Tudor dynasty ended with the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603; her cousin, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England and thus began the Stuart lineage. Though he was influential in his homeland, he knew little about the English laws, institutions, and customs. James believed in divine right and consequently alienated the parliament who were accustomed to the Tudor’s “balanced polity”. Parliament did however manage to keep the power of the purse and expressed their unhappiness by refusing the king’s money requests. King James’ additional failure was stemmed from religious affiliations. The Puritans in the country wanted James to eliminate the Episcopal system of the church organization in which bishops or episcopos held a major role in the administration and replace it with the Presbyterian model. This model was used in Scotland, replicated after Calvin’s church in Geneva where ministers and elders played an important governing role. However, their pleas were pushed away by James’ refusal because he realized in the Anglican Church, the bishops were appointed by the crown. This gave the monarchy supreme authority over church and state. At this time there was a growing opposition of the king and now the Puritans joined in with other English gentry.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays