Preview

Why Was There a Civil War in England in 1642?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
551 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why Was There a Civil War in England in 1642?
Why was there a civil war in England in 1642?

In 1642, an English Civil War broke out. This was a battle between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists. This will be an essay giving information on the long term and short term causes for the English Civil War. I will be dividing the long term causes into the economic, religious and political causes and I will also include short terms causes towards the end of the essay.

From 1625-1649 Charles I believed that kings got their power from God and that they must be obeyed; just like his father, James I. This cause, I have chosen, is probably one of the most important causes and that it is like the main route for the rest of the causes.
1629-1640 Charles I spent a lot of money on himself; he liked paintings and expensive clothes. Because of this he lost some money because most of it was wasted for his own pleasure. I have chosen this cause to be one of the most important causes, because personally I think this is like the second route for the rest of the causes; e.g. the bronchi then lead to the bronchioles. Later on, (1633), Charles I made William Laud the Archbishop of Canterbury. But there was a problem, Laud did not like Puritans! Laud changed the Church of England services by introducing the statues, music and the candles that the Puritans hated.
In 1637, Laud’s changes were forced on the Scottish church; many Scots were Puritans. The Scottish then attacked England in 1639 because they disagreed with the religious changes that were made.
Battles cost a lot of money but because Charles had no money, he introduced, in 1635, a special tax, to the people, called ‘Ship Money’; there was a rule that anyone who didn’t pay was to be put in prison. This didn’t work enough so he decided to call back the Parliament, in 1640, to borrow some money to fight the Scots, but of course they didn’t let him, because from 1629-1640 he decided to rule the country without the Parliament.
In the 1630s, the Earl of

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

    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
  • Better Essays

    It is possible to perceive that England was torn apart by religious revolution as a consequence of the public risings in the response to the changes. After their introduction, the country suffered from a number of rebellions, most significantly the Western rebellion- also known as the Prayer Book rebellion. During the Somerset protectorate of Edward’s rule, the Act of Uniformity was introduced and consequently the English version of the Common Prayer Book as opposed to the Latin variant- an act that proved to be the primary cause of the Western rebellion. The dispute was then antagonised by the harsh enforcement of religious changes by William Body and the demands from the rebels to reintroduce Catholicism and its rituals, such as the use of Latin in services. However, although this uprising resulted in a 3000 strong protest, it only occurred in the South of the country, suggesting that support for the rebellion wasn’t national. Other negative responses to the introduction of the Common Prayer book include non-attendance at church services- an act sufficient enough for it to be noted and to prompt government action.…

    • 1934 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Protestant reformers saw this as a chance to convey genuine change to the congregation in England. “In time, these reformers came to be called Puritans, mainly because they wanted to purify the Church of England of Catholic traditions that they did not believe to be biblical.”[2] In any case, after numerous years of battling for change, a few…

    • 1588 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    When King Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he was set on the idea of a personal rule without any help from Parliament. This he could manage, as long as he avoided war. His aim was to sort out the country's finances, and with the help of Strafford and Laud, impose a 'Policy of Thorough'. This policy was the idea of a fair and paternalistic government with no corruption. However, within 11 years, Charles' personal rule had failed and England was drifting into war. There are mixed opinions on whether this failure was solely due to the actions of the King, or those of third parties, for example, Strafford or Laud.…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Charles the First became king in England, (also in Scotland) in 1625. He caused many problems with the Parliament because he believed in absolute monarchy. At one point Parliament limited Charles The First's power and he went along with a petition they had made but soon dismissed the Parliament.…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    His childhood left a mark on Charles's behaviour as king. Like James he was a believer in the divine right of kings. Unlike James, he was absolutist and tried to put it into practice. Given his belief in divine right, he saw all parliaments privileges as being subject to the approval of the monarch, not as liberties that had existed without the judgement of the monarch. Also unlike James He saw all criticism and anyone who questioned him as disloyal. An example of these in combination is when Charles I dissolved parliament because he was being criticized by Parliament as he felt he didn't need them as long as he could avoid war. This began the 11 year period known as the Personal Rule where he ran the country through royal prerogative instead of in cooperation with parliament.…

    • 611 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nevertheless the factions within this created conflict that Charles’ religious policies exacerbated. Charles favoured the High Church Arminian group within the Church of England, because they stressed the God-like nature of the King. This was led by William Laud and with his promotion to Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 this group obtained significant power and authority. They believed in ‘the beauty of holiness’ - that ceremonies, statues, priests and vestments were essential rudiments of Church service. The English Puritans were Calvinists and hated what seemed a return to the ‘popery’ of Catholicism. Laud was viewed by many as a “little thief put into the window of the church to unlock the door to popery.” In Scotland after the abdication of Mary Queen of Scots in 1567, a Presbyterian church had been established. Scottish Presbyterians were even more anti-Catholic than the Puritans. They believed that Bishops should be abolished and replaced by elders elected by a church council. Both Puritan and Presbyterian groups formed the majority and were invariably aware of the danger of a return to the Papacy. Catholicism was associated with the burnings of Protestants under Mary and with their enemies Spain and…

    • 1970 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles I began to move towards “popery” through his backing of William Laud, the archbishop of Canterbury, in imposing ornate ceremonies into the Church of England (The Making of the West 515). The harsh treatment of his opposition, Puritan critics, was not received well. After refusing to “call Parliament into session” until 1640, the divide between Puritans, who controlled Parliament and Charles I grew (The Making of the West 514). The Puritans feared the reinstatement of Catholicism.…

    • 160 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    shows how Charles planned to maintain unlimited power. Charles had the belief of Divine Right…

    • 757 Words
    • 4 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

    Charles I had a very bad start as king, he held all the blame at this point, because of his bad start people didn’t trust him much and he also had a stammer and was shy so people thought it would be more likely for him to let a war happen. Charles needed a stronger personality to be able to rule, people disliked Charles even more when he made the Duke of Buckingham chief minister as he was very unpopular and selfish. Things didn’t get any better when Charles married a catholic wife with a strong personality. People feared that as England was protestant, and Charles married a catholic wife, because of her strong personality she might make England catholic. Parliament was partly to blame for the earlier tension as they tried to refuse customs taxes to Charles.…

    • 956 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Montana 1948(Monologue)

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    I know I shouldn’t be feeling this. Would it be a sin to do so?…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Civil War was the bloodiest war in all of America's history.But some things still remains a mystery in the Civil War.There were many reasons to how the Civil War was cause.A lot of people thinks that slavery was the cause,but it is only one of the many causes.Slavery, Economy, and State's Rights were the main cause to the Civil War.The slavery brought tensions,many differences in economy,and fighting for a cause.Tensions rose as Republicans and Democrats fight for a solution in slavery,the North and South many differences in their economy,and reasons to fighting in the Civil War.The Civil War was fought for slavery, economy, and State's Rights.…

    • 678 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays